Floor Statements

Will the Senator yield for a question as to how much more time the Senator will be taking, so we can adjust?

I thank the Senator.

I say to my colleague I do not quite understand it either.

In response to the comments of the Senator from West Virginia about the importance of long-term care, I think all of us understand that. I think all of us who meet and have interface with our constituents recognize that the issue of long-term care is one of transcendent importance. The Senator

from West Virginia said he would be glad to make some changes or tweaks to the program. We would be eager to hear of those. We would be eager to hear how we could change the program, the CLASS Act, so it is not, as Senator Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, said of the CLASS Act, ``a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.''

I think it is pretty clear if we accept Senator Conrad's and other objective assessments of the CLASS Act that we have to go back to square one. We are not going to be able to fix a program about which, the Congressional Budget Office said:

. . . the programs would add to budget deficits in the third

decade--and in succeeding decades--by amounts on the order of

tens of billions of dollars for each 10-year period.

The CLASS program would add to budget deficits in future

decades even though the proposals require the Secretary of

Health and Human Services to set premiums to ensure the

program's solvency for 75 years.

I would like to interject. I know my colleagues share my view. When Senators leave we kind of forget them. Maybe we do not mention them anymore. But we owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Gregg, former Senator from New Hampshire, who put in this provision that required solvency over a period of 75 years before it could be implemented. If it had not been for that provision, we would now be moving forward with a program that, according to the CBO, would add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit in each 10-year period.

Wherever you are, Senator Gregg, and I know you are happier than if you were here, I offer my appreciation and my thanks.

I note the presence of Dr. Barrasso. I think there is something we ought to understand about the CLASS Act. It did have a short-term impact according to the way the Congressional Budget Office ``scores'' things, tells us how much things will add or detract from the deficit, either plus or minus. The fact is, the CLASS Act, in the first 10 years, because younger people would be paying in premiums and would not have gotten to the point where they are eligible for the benefits, it disguised the cost of what we know now as--what we call ObamaCare.

Because of the way they are restricted on scoring, the CLASS Act, at least for 10 years, contributed $70 billion and helped them estimate that the Health Care Reform Act, known as ObamaCare, would have $122 billion in savings, when in reality after the first 10-year period it was tens of billions of dollars in added deficit and burdens on average Americans.

I ask my colleague, Senator Barrasso, Isn't there a way we could address the long-term care problem in America? Isn't there a way we could address this issue without piling on, as the CBO judged the CLASS Act, an increase of tens of billions of dollars to the deficit, which we all know right now is $44,000, I believe, for every man, woman, and child in America?

So we now have about two-thirds of what was advertised as a savings now going by the boards; in other words, $70 billion of the advertised $122 billion in total savings that we voted on not that long ago; is that correct?

I say to my colleague, what is a little hard to understand--maybe Dr. Barrasso understands it--the Secretary of Health and Human Services said they can find no way to implement it, after nearly 2 years. So why would there be an objection to Senator Thune having just moved to repeal the CLASS Act?

If they tried for all of these months since the passage of the bill to figure out a way they can meet the Judd Gregg proviso that required the 75-year sustainability, then one would wonder why--one would wonder why we would not just go ahead and repeal it. If there is a better proposal, as we have all agreed, to address the long-term care issue in America, then why don't we sit down at the drawing board and find a way to care for people who, in their most vulnerable years, need government assistance?

I know of no one in this body who is opposed to a viable, reasonable, fiscally sound long-term care program. This is not it. This is not it. It is not even close. So I wondered why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would refuse to repeal it unless it is some distorted pride in authorship.

The popular Medicare Advantage Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking member of the Commerce Committee for their hard work on this nomination and their continued great work in the Commerce Committee, on which I once had the great honor of serving.

I rise today to support the nomination of Mr. John Bryson to be the 37th Secretary of the Department of Commerce. As I mentioned, during my time in the Senate I had the great honor of serving on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, one of the most important committees in the Senate, in my view. It is a wonderful and broadening experience to be a member of that committee.

I think what we are discussing today is important; that is, whether Mr. Bryson should be confirmed by Members of my side of the aisle, because we may not agree with some of his views and some of his philosophies and statements in the past.

I want to be clear. If I were President of the United States, I would probably not have nominated Mr. Bryson, even though I am confident he is a fine man. We just have different views on issues. I think we all ought to appreciate the fact that elections do have consequences. When a President is elected, we have an important role to play of advice and consent. But we also have a role to play in understanding that the American people have spoken and elected a President of the United States and placed on him the responsibility of the Presidency. The best way he can carry out those responsibilities in the most efficient fashion is to have members of his team around him, people in whom he has trust and confidence. Mr. Bryson clearly has the trust and confidence of the President.

There are times when all of us have opposed a nominee for an office that requires the advice and consent of the Senate. But those occasions should be rare. Those occasions should be when, in the judgment of a Senator, that individual is not fit to serve. That is a big difference between whether you think that individual should serve or not. In other words, the President's right, in my view, to have a team around him so that he can best serve the country is a very important consideration, without losing or in any way diminishing our responsibility of advice and consent.

Mr. Bryson has held a number of positions in business and in other walks of life that are impressive. He may not have made statements or done things that we particularly agree with, but I don't think you can question Mr. Bryson's credentials and background to fulfill the job of Secretary of Commerce. That should be the criteria, in my view.

Everybody is entitled to their opinions as to their role as a Senator regarding advice and consent. I don't try to tell any other Senator their role. But I think that the Senate, during most of its existence, will find the President has been given the benefit of appointing individuals to positions of authority and responsibility because the President has earned that right. So it has to be an overriding reason to vote to reject a nominee.

By the way, I point out that, in this particular case, because of inaction on the trade agreements, a group of us sent a letter to the majority leader saying we would withhold support for the current nominee until the free-trade agreements were passed. The free-trade agreements were passed.

I urge my colleagues to look at Mr. Bryson's background and not whether you agree with his statements or philosophy, but whether he is truly qualified. I believe he is qualified to serve.

I will also mention to my colleagues on this side of the aisle that some day, sooner or later--and I hope sooner rather than later--we will have a Republican President who will be nominating individuals to serve on his team or her team. Then I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will also observe sort of what has been traditional in the Senate, which is that you give a President certain latitude to pick the members of his team who he thinks will help him serve this Nation through difficult times with the utmost efficiency and loyalty.

I thank both Senator Rockefeller and Senator Hutchison for their work on this important and, in my view, all too controversial nomination. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the nomination of John Bryson to be the 37th Secretary of the Department of Commerce.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, this amendment is about white squirrel sanctuaries, museums, roadside landscaping, Lincoln highway, roadside museums, antique bike collections--my favorite is the National Corvette Museum Simulator Theater. I will try to go to that one, since my first purchase as a young naval officer was a wonderful Corvette, which I remember with great affection. I would like to go back into their simulator theater.

Then, of course, there are wildlife echo passages. We have some great pictures here of some of the things. I think the squirrel sanctuary is good. But one of my favorites is, of course, the roadside museum featuring a giant coffee pot. I am a coffee drinker, so I think a coffee pot is pretty nice.

You know, we have some fun stuff here. Here we have 60 antique bikes for a bicycle museum. They paid $440,000 for 60 antique bikes for that museum. Again, I think bicycle museums are nice. But it is also a fact that more people travel over deficient bridges every day--that is 210 million people--than go to McDonald's. So we have these projects here-- and, obviously, full disclosure, we picked some of the more interesting and exciting ones to get our colleagues' attention. But the fact is that we have deficient bridges and we have highways that need to be repaired.

What I am saying here is let the States decide their priorities. Do not force the States to set aside 10 percent of their funding for these so-called transportation enhancement activities. If they want to have enhancement activities--and we do--I am so pleased, when driving through Phoenix and Tucson, to see the bougainvillea, the cactus, and other things that have been built there and put in, which have been very helpful. But those decisions on those State highways were made by the State of Arizona and the cities and the counties.

Instead, we have forced every State in America to use 10 percent of their taxpayer dollars, which are in the form of gasoline taxes, which were originally put in to build the national highway system in America under the Eisenhower administration, which they pay--they pay that. At the same time, we have a situation, such as the deputy director in southern Nevada of the Nevada Department of Transportation, saying:

It is really getting out of hand to where these pots of

money have those constraints associated with them and you

can't spend money where you want to.

That is what this is all about. This is a fundamental philosophical difference that we have about where taxpayer dollars should go and who decides. That is what this amendment is about. I want the mayor of Phoenix to decide where the money goes. I want the Department of Transportation in Arizona to decide where the money is best spent. We should not be forcing people to spend money on things that are not necessary anymore.

I think a white squirrel sanctuary is probably an important thing and squirrel lovers all over America are overjoyed. But who loves this boulder? Really, $498,750 to beautify an interchange with decorative rocks?

It is not as if this money is spent in a vacuum. It is that we have to set priorities. I want the States to set those priorities, rather than them be mandated by some provision enacted in the Senate, which does not have a good handle on what those States' priorities are.

I note the presence of the Senator from Washington, who wishes to use a few minutes in opposition to the amendment. I look forward to hearing her eloquent opposition. Maybe she will change my mind.

I yield to the Senator from Washington.

Madam President, I believe I heard the Senator from Washington say that it would prohibit activities by Amtrak. I know of nothing in this page-and-a-quarter amendment that would in any way affect Amtrak or the Brooklyn Bridge. In fact, I would like for the money to be used to repair bridges because there are so many thousands of bridges in the country. There are 146,633 deficient bridges in this country. I would hope the Senator from Washington would agree with me that deficient bridges are a threat and a danger. I believe it was in the State of Washington where one collapsed, as I recall.

So you can distort this amendment if you want to. You can say it would be the end of Western civilization as we know it. You can say this will cause irreparable harm and damage. It doesn't, my friends. It doesn't. It just says that none of the amounts would be for scenic or historic programs or tourist and welcome centers. And we are not prohibiting these things from being built. If the States want to build them, if the counties want to build them, if the cities want to build them, let them do it. But right now we are mandating that 10 percent of the money they get go to certain purposes, which results in this outcome.

So I say, with respect to my colleagues who are opposing this amendment, if my colleagues would like to amend the amendment so that it doesn't have the Draconian effects that are predicted here, I would be more than happy to amend the amendment to make sure that doesn't happen. What I am trying to say and what this amendment clearly says in its 10 lines on the front and 4 lines on the back is that we think these things are unnecessary in light of the fact that we have so much infrastructure in need of repair.

So, again, I had no contemplation that civilization would be affected so terribly by such an amendment which would try to give the director of transportation in southern Nevada the ability to be able to say: It is really getting out of hand to where these pots of money have these constraints associated with them, and you can't spend money where you want to. That is what this amendment is all about, my friends.

I have been engaged in many debates on the floor of the Senate on various amendments, but to construe this very short amendment as somehow inhibiting or harmful to the work that needs to be done is obviously, in my view, fairly transparent and certainly not applicable to this amendment.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

If Senator Inhofe would like to use that time, I would be happy to yield to him.

Madam President, again, the question is, What do we do with the money? And obviously, when taxpayers are told that, with 146,633 deficient bridges in this country, that we don't need to be spending it on the examples I have provided--I hope it is well understood that if those projects are felt needed by the States and the counties and the elected officials in the States, then they should be able to go ahead with them, but if they don't choose to, they should also have the right not to. It is time some of this kind of stuff stopped.

I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of the amendment.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I have made the argument that these projects are unnecessary. We have tens of thousands of bridges that are deficient. We need to spend the money where it should be spent, and I hope my colleagues will understand that this might have been appropriate some time ago, but in this day and age, with our crumbling infrastructure, we need to put the money in the right place.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, as always I listened with interest to my friend and colleague from Illinois. I did not come to the floor with my colleagues to discuss that particular issue, but it is interesting, the justification for the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, when the fact is there are thousands of small businesses and companies all over America that had to go into bankruptcy but did not get the bailout that was favorable to the trade unions. Why couldn't General Motors have gone into bankruptcy the way every other company and corporation has had to do in these hard economic times, restructured, and then gone back into business again?

Instead, this administration and my friend from Illinois seemed to favor the trade unions who obviously got very favorable treatment rather than the normal bankruptcy procedures. Unlike the treatment the favored trade unions and automobile corporations were able to get, thousands of small businesses and companies all over America were unable to get the benefit of their largesse.

Mr. President, I came to the floor this morning with my colleagues to discuss the National Defense Authorization bill. Before I do, I wish to mention there has been a lot of talk dominating certainly part of the talk radio and television about the bus tour the President is on. A lot of it is centered around the bus. I am not going to discuss that anymore except to say that in 2008 when I ran for President I didn't need a bus to be paid for and billed by the government and the taxpayers of the United States. I understand that now there has been another bus purchased for who ever the Republican nominees are. How do you justify that? The Republican nominee may not want a bus.

The fact is, after having said that, the most important point here is that the President is now, on the taxpayers' money, campaigning for 3 days in North Carolina. It says in today's Washington Post ``On N.C. Bus Tour, Obama In Full Campaign Mode.'' I say I have seen other Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, who have hedged and come right up to the edge, and sometimes crossed over it, charging the taxpayers for what has been clearly campaign activities. But never do I believe any of us have seen the kind of activity the President is engaged in, and all of it being charged to the taxpayers of America. That is wrong. That is the wrong thing to do.

According to recent reports, the President's campaign has raised record amounts of money already. The campaign should be paying for this North Carolina trip of his. I do not begrudge him beating up on us and criticizing us and making all kinds of allegations about not understanding his stimulus 2 package, which we understand very well is more of the same. But at least his campaign should be paying for this kind of campaigning.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues from Georgia, Senator Chambliss; from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte; and the distinguished Republican leader, Senator McConnell, for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. President, today we come to the floor to talk about the importance of the Defense authorization bill. For 50 years the Congress of the United States has enacted a Defense authorization bill, enacted it into law and had it signed by the President of the United States. There have been times when this legislation has been very contentious--days during the Vietnam war, days during Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Bosnia, Kosovo. All of those times the Defense authorization bill has been a vehicle for debate and votes on the floor of the Senate concerning transcendent issues of national security.

For 50 years we have cared for the men and women who have served and provided them with the equipment, the pay, the benefits those men and women of this country deserve after hundreds of hours of deliberation, thousands of hours of written testimony and testimony before the committee--the full committee and subcommittees such as that under the chairmanship of the Senator from the State of Georgia.

Because of a part of the legislation, the majority leader has decided that we will not take this bill to the floor of the Senate. That is a betrayal of the men and women who are serving this Nation.

I understand there are differences on the issue of detainee treatment. I understand it is an emotional issue. But should it be a reason for the Senate not to carry out its 50-year tradition to debate and discuss and amend and vote and then come out with a package that provides for the needs, the training, the equipment, the benefits of the men and women who are serving?

I quote from a letter from the distinguished majority leader to Senator Levin and to me, ``However, as you know, I do not intend to bring this bill to the floor until concerns regarding the bill's detainee provisions are resolved.''

Is that the way the Senate works, that we do not bring bills to the floor unless objectionable matters that are disagreed with by one side or the other are not resolved? I always believed the way these issues are resolved is through debates, through amendment, through votes, through allowing the American people also to see and hear our deliberations, our discussions, and our debate.

Obviously the fiscal year has expired so this bill is obviously long overdue. Now we are in a position where apparently the majority leader wants to take up the President's jobs bill in parts, one by one, in complete disregard of the needs and requirements of the men and women who are serving our national security.

Part of that bill also is the portion from the Intelligence Committee. By the way, I note the presence of the Senator from South Carolina, who knows more about detainees than any Member of this body without question. He continuously travels to Iraq and Afghanistan, he has visited the prisons. He understands the issues better than anyone. I would be willing to ask him how he feels about the detainee provisions, after the Senator from Georgia makes

a comment about the importance of the intelligence portion of the Defense authorization bill.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for the enormous contribution she has made in putting together this legislation. I wish both her and my friend from South Carolina to address this.

In the letter sent to Senator Levin and me to address this issue, Senator Reid, the majority leader, as the rationale for not bringing the bill to the floor, says: I do not intend to bring this bill to the floor until concerns regarding the bill's detainee provisions are resolved.

It goes on and on and then he says: As Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan stated in a recent speech--he said in summary, this approach, talking about the approach that we have taken in the bill--I believe the vote was 25 to 1. He said: This approach would impose unprecedented restrictions on the ability of experienced professionals to combat terrorism, injecting legal and operational uncertainty into what is already enormously complicated work.

I wonder, does Mr. Brennan understand what is in the legislation?

Can I ask my colleague--it is a fact, as the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, that 27 percent of the detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the fight. Not only have they returned to the fight, the fact that they were in Guantanamo gives them an automatic kind of charisma and aura and leadership in al- Qaida and other terrorist organizations. Does the Senator think the American people find that acceptable, that one out of every four we have released from Guantanamo Bay has reentered the fight and clearly is responsible for the deaths of at least some of the brave young Americans and may be responsible for the deaths of Americans in the future?

As has happened in Yemen.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, we have unanimous consent for a colloquy.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.

I know we have addressed this issue in some depth, but I would remind my colleagues, this is the Defense authorization bill. This is the product of thousands of hours of work, of staff work, hundreds of hours of testimony and hearings, a week-long markup of the full committee putting this package together. The thoughts, the ideas, the recommendations of the administration, and people in and out of the administration, the knowledge and expertise of thousands of individuals go into this most important piece of legislation.

For 50 years it has been taken up, debated, amended, passed, and signed into law by the President of the United States. Now, because of one small provision of this bill, the majority leader of the Senate, at the behest of the White House, has decided we will not take up the Defense authorization bill for the first time in 50 years.

I think the distinguished Republican leader and I, who have been around here for quite a while, have seen this process now deteriorate to the point where we now cannot debate, amend, and pass legislation that is so vital to our Nation's security and the men and women who take part in preserving it. This is kind of a sad day for this Member.

Could I also point out to my friends and my colleagues that, as is the case quite often, even though the vote was 25 to 1 on this provision in the Senate Armed Services Committee, we did provide, at the request of the administration, a waiver for national security. So we included a waiver that says:

The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the

Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence,

waive the requirement of paragraph (1)--

That is the detainee issue--

if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in

writing that such a waiver is in the national security

interests of the United States.

So there is a national security waiver. We have given the President of the United States a way that he could waive every provision of this legislation--something I was not particularly happy about, but in the spirit of compromise, we gave a waiver.

Could I say, also, I am sure--I see the majority leader on the floor--yes, there have been contentious times. There was contention last year about the don't ask, don't tell act. The year before, there was contention about the fact that they added the hate crimes bill, which had nothing to do with national security, onto the bill. But at least we ought to go ahead and take up and debate and amend and have the Senate act, as the American people expect us to; that is, consideration, voting, and the President, if it is that objectionable, obviously, could veto the bill.

But to say, because of these few pages--these pages right here of the bill--that, therefore, we will not even take up the bill, for the first time in 50 years, in my view, is a great disservice to the men and women who are serving.

I thank my friends, the Senator from New Hampshire and the minority leader.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a comment?

I want to say to the majority leader, whom I have known and been friends with for many years, I thank him for his kind remarks. I am very appreciative of his commitment to bringing the Defense authorization bill to the floor. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment for the purposes of calling up amendments.

Mr. President, I call up three amendments numbered 739, 740, and 741 and ask unanimous consent that they be reported by number.

I yield the floor.

If it is agreeable to the managers, I will discuss two of my amendments--one, the amendment to prohibit the use of transportation enhancement grants to fund certain projects, and the other, No. 740, to eliminate funding for trade adjustment assistance for firms.

Is that agreeable?

I thank the Senator from Maryland.

First, I would like to talk about the amendment that would remedy the misplaced priorities of Congress by focusing valuable transportation dollars on improving our Nation's crumbling infrastructure.

Under current law, 10 percent of funding provided from the Surface Transportation Program must be used for transportation enhancement activities. Let me make it clear. When you pay your tax on a gallon of gasoline and send it to Washington, 10 percent--10 cents out of every one of those dollars--has to be used for transportation enhancement activities. If the State's priority is to rebuild a bridge, 10 percent of it has to go to transportation enhancement, but if the State's priority is to build a new freeway, then too bad--10 cents out of every dollar still must be spent on ``transportation enhancement activities,'' such as transportation museums like the Corvette Museum in Kentucky, the White Squirrel Sanctuary in Tennessee, landscaping along Las Vegas highways, walkways, and bike paths, and other activities. Many of these programs may be valuable, and they could be valuable, but rather than a mandated 10 percent be used for those purposes, shouldn't the States and the local authorities be the ones to make those decisions if they think the money could be better spent on other priorities rather than we here in Congress mandating that 10 percent should be used for transportation enhancement activities?

Everybody knows and the President has spoken eloquently about our Nation's highways, roads, and bridges that are crumbling and in need of repair. So it doesn't make sense to mandate any Federal dollars to something other than those, especially since the priorities of the State and local governments may be very different.

The amendment would prohibit funding in the bill for 7 of the 12 transportation enhancement activities. Specifically, funding would be prohibited for scenic or historic highway programs, including tourist and welcome centers, landscaping and scenic beautification, historic preservation, rehabilitation, and operation of historic transportation building structures or facilities, control and removal of outdoor advertising, archeological planning and research, and establishment of transportation museums. I will be the first to say some of those are good programs. Some of those may be necessary. But none of them need to be mandated.

This amendment does not prohibit funding for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, pedestrian and bicycle safety and education activities, conversion of abandoned railway corridors to trails, environmental mitigation of highway runoff pollution, reducing vehicle-caused wildlife mortality, maintaining habitat connectivity, and acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites. Frankly, I would like to see it all eliminated, but I can understand an argument for the five that are not included in this amendment.

We are talking about real money. According to the Department of Transportation, almost $1 billion was slated for transportation enhancement funds in 2011. Since 1992, more than $12 billion has gone to these programs. My colleagues can argue that these are important. I argue that it makes more sense to stop forcing States to spend this money on flowers and museums and allow them to spend it on 146,633 deficient bridges in this country. My home State of Arizona alone has 903 deficient bridges. If the State of Arizona should want that money spent to repair bridges, it seems to me they should be allowed their priorities rather than 10 percent of it being mandated for any purpose, much less those seven that are outlined in the amendment.

We know what the debt is--$14.8 trillion. We have to spend our money in a fiscally responsible manner and not on special interest projects. For example, the State of Tennessee has more than 3,800 deficient bridges. Because of this Federal mandate, however, States are forced to spend valuable and limited transportation dollars on transportation enhancement projects such as the White Squirrel Sanctuary in Kenton, TN. Kenton, the home of the white squirrel, has spent $269,404 on the sanctuary. The funding for the White Squirrel Sanctuary was used for construction of walking trails, including brick crosswalks, a foot bridge, and trailhead parking within Kenton to provide for the safe observation of white squirrels.

The Lincoln Highway, a 200-mile roadside museum in Pennsylvania, received $300,000 in enhancement funding to commemorate the historical roadway with several items along the 200-mile route. These funds were used for items such as signs, ``colorful vintage gas pumps painted by local artists,'' and this refurbished coffee pot pictured on this poster board. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania ranks first out of all States for deficient bridges. Yet it seems to be more important to furbish large roadside coffee pots.

Instead of spending money on fixing California's 7,091 deficient bridges, federally mandated tax dollars were spent on antique bike collections, a dragon gateway, and a sculpture for a parking lot in Laguna Beach. Specifically, the University of California received $440,000 to purchase and display 60 antique bikes for its bicycle museum collection. Los Angeles spent $250,000 to aid in the construction of the Twin Dragons Gateway entrance to the Chinatown area.

The National Corvette Museum in Kentucky received $198,000 to build a national Corvette museum simulator theater, while over 1,300 bridges in Kentucky are deficient and 3,000 are functionally obsolete, meaning they do not meet current design standards.

I must say, in the interest of full disclosure, I have a special feeling for the Corvette. My first means of transportation on graduation from the Naval Academy was a modest model of the Corvette, and I almost wanted to take this out. But since a national Corvette museum simulator theater has very little to do with transportation enhancement, I felt compelled to add this.

Nevada spent millions of Federal transportation dollars to make Vegas's highways beautiful. In 2008, Nevada received $2.6 billion in transportation grants. Instead of spending money on road upgrades or repairing 804 deficient bridges, the money was used for landscaping projects, for instance $498,750 went for ``decorative rocks, native plants, some pavement graphics, a few walls and some great big granite boulders'' to beautify an interchange to Las Vegas's 215 Beltway.

I think it is a very beautiful boulder.

Nevada also spent $319,000 on more landscaping projects that included more rocks and more plants on a highway beautification project only a few miles down the road.

Let me say again, I think highway beautification projects are very important. When local and State officials wanted to have that kind of beautification along many of the freeways in my State, we planted cactus and bougainvillea and others. I think that is wonderful. But the fact is, when we have bridges that are actually dangerous for our constituents to use, then obviously we have to make some prioritization. As I mentioned, local officials who discussed the projects were quoted as saying--I am talking about the Nevada graphics and big, giant boulders and rocks--``We applied for the Federal enhancement dollars and those can only be used for landscaping and pedestrian-type improvements.'' In other words, local officials in Nevada said they had no choice as to what to spend the money on.

In addition, the N-DOT Nevada transportation deputy director for southern Nevada was quoted as saying: ``It's really getting out of hand to where these pots of money have those constraints associated with them and you can't spend money where you want to.''

Florida spent $3.4 million of stimulus transportation enhancement funding for a wildlife ecopassage. The wildlife crosswalk will be used by turtles and other animals that live in Lake Jackson, FL. The turtle tunnel will consist of a series of fences that will direct all the animal traffic to a 13-foot tunnel that will go under the road. Even though Florida has received millions in stimulus funds for the tunnel, the permanent ecopassage is only in the design stage and is not fully funded. It needs $6 million more, and it is unclear how long it will take to get the project built. Meanwhile, Florida has over 1,800 bridges in need of repair or improvements.

Other examples of wasteful and unnecessary mandated transportation enhancement projects include: $400,000 for a Pennsylvania trolley museum; $23 million for a Tennessee bicentennial history memorial; $234,000 for an Art Walk in Vermont; $160,000 for a Roman bathhouse renovation in West Virginia; $500,000 for the renovation of the Toledo Harbor Lighthouse in Ohio; $150,000 for a salamander crossing in Vermont; $1 million for the North Carolina Transportation Museum; $78,000 for a railroad caboose relocation and renovation; $210,790 for the Merchant and Drovers Tavern Museum in New Jersey; $40,000 spent on a new town sign in Iowa; $216,000 for fencing around oil wells in Oklahoma; $500,000 for a Santa Ana train station mural; $120,000 to restore Crandall Farm in Rhode Island; $44,500 on welcome signs in South Carolina; $150,000 to print and produce brochures on landscaping and replace a brochure display case in Kansas; $3 million on landscaping and a pedestrian walkway at the Indiana State Fairgrounds.

So here we are with $1 billion spent just last year, more than $12 billion gone since 1992, and the numbers go up. I hope my colleagues will vote to find it necessary that these kinds of funding would be prohibited for the programs such as I have outlined.

I have to be honest with my colleagues. If I had my way, about 80 cents out of every $1 in gas taxes would stay in my home State of Arizona and in every State of America where it is collected and then we would let the Governors and city councils and mayors and county authorities make the decisions as to what that money should be spent on.

I remind my colleagues that we enacted the gas tax during the Eisenhower administration in order to build a national highway system. Long ago, the National Highway System was completed. Yet the money still goes from our citizens directly to the Federal Government, when it should be going to the States to make the decisions which they can make best. I doubt if many State authorities would have made the decisions such as I have just described there. I also believe a lot of the authorities and officials in various States would agree with the deputy director of the Nevada Department of Transportation, director for southern Nevada, who was quoted as saying:

It is really getting out of hand to where these pots of

money have these constraints associated with them and you

can't spend money where you want to.

I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of that amendment.

Amendment No. 740

Madam President, according to a previous agreement, I will discuss amendment No. 740, which is to eliminate funding for trade adjustment assistance for firms--I emphasize for firms. Again, in the interests of full disclosure, I believe trade adjustment assistance is a compromise that was made back under President Clinton's administration, when certain free-trade agreements, specifically as I recall NAFTA, was agreed to. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program was set up for individuals who would be adversely affected as a result of the enactment of free-trade agreements.

We would not have enacted the free-trade agreements if we did not believe that the overwhelming effect of free-trade agreements would be beneficial to business in the United States and would result in hiring and jobs and a better economy. But I also understand there may be individuals in specific cases where these free-trade agreements hurt the businesses in certain places in the country.

I must say I opposed the increase in the trade adjustment assistance which was part of the deal made in order to ensure passage of the three free-trade agreements that were just concluded in this body a short time ago--the free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. But I do believe there are some aspects of this program we should examine more carefully.

The TAA for Firms Program provides matching grants of up to $75,000 to firms that have been impacted by trade so the firms can hire private sector consultants to help them become competitive. The program is administered through a network of regional nonprofit trade adjustment assistance centers that are chosen noncompetitively. It is my experience that wherever the Federal Government abandons competition, the American taxpayer usually loses. These TAACs have been known to charge exorbitant overhead rates of 60 percent of grant funding, and the Government Accountability Office has questioned the program's effectiveness and administrative costs. According to the President, this President, this administration sent over a termination list with its fiscal year 2012 budget. According to the President's own proposal in his own fiscal year 2012 budget: ``The Administration proposes to eliminate the Economic Development Administration Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms program.''

That is not the proposal of the Senator from Arizona, although it is in this amendment. It is the proposal of the President of the United States. I think it would be hard for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to argue he is insensitive to the plight of firms and individuals and companies that are affected by free-trade agreements.

According to the President's termination list, a message he sent over to Congress, the justification goes on to say: ``The Administration believes that

it would be more effective to concentrate EDA's resources on public investments in infrastructure and institutions that promote innovation and entrepreneurship.''

The inclusion of this program in the President's termination list is strong evidence we should no longer be funding the program. It also begs the question: Why are we choosing to spend almost $16 million on a program we don't need and has consistently had its effectiveness questioned? This is money we don't have and don't need to spend.

As I said before, I have always been skeptical of trade adjustment assistance and similar programs such as this one for firms. I believe these programs are potential vehicles for government waste, where market interference unfairly puts the government in the position of choosing winners and losers. I believe the evidence stating that trade adjustment assistance and similar programs achieve their goals is suspect as well.

That fight is over, at least for the time being. But I might add there are still many questions about the TAA Program. We need to analyze whether the TAA Program is doing what it was intended to do. The following are some of the questions and concerns we should consider.

Does the TAA Program provide overly generous benefits to a narrow population? According to analysis from the Heritage Foundation, based on statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the third quarter of fiscal year 2009, only 1 percent of mass layoffs were a result of import competition of overseas relocation.

Another question: Is there evidence that trade adjustment assistance benefits and training helped increase participants earnings? An analysis by Professor Kara M. Reynolds of American University found ``little evidence that it (TAA) helps displaced workers find new, well- paying employment opportunities.'' In fact, TAA participants experienced a wage loss of 10 percent.

The same study found that in 2007 the Federal Government appropriated $855.1 million to TAA programs. Of this amount, funding for training programs accounted for only 25 percent.

In 2007, the Office of Management and Budget rated the TAA Program as ``ineffective.'' The OMB found that the TAA Program fails to use tax dollars effectively because, among other reasons, the program has failed to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of achieving its goals. The American people are hurting. Unemployment remains at unacceptable levels and is estimated to continue to grow. We need to cut unnecessary spending, such as this program, at a time when our national debt has reached this unsustainable level. The American people face painful choices about how to cut our Federal budget.

I wish to conclude again by saying I don't believe the trade adjustment is a viable program. I also understand what was decided by both sides of the House, with the support of some of my Republican colleagues, that trade adjustment was the price for passage of the three trade agreements that have been signed by the President of the United States. I think, in this case on this particular program, where the President of the United States has asked for its termination because of its ineffectiveness and its--and I believe it would be more effective to concentrate these resources on public investment in infrastructure and institutions that promote innovation and entrepreneurship--I hope we would abide by the recommendation of the President of the United States with whom, as my colleagues know, I am not always in total agreement.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I will be very brief.

The President of the United States weighed in heavily in favor of renewal and even expansion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. This amendment only applies to portions of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program that the President and the administration specifically pointed out as being ineffective and sent over as a program for which they recommended termination. I hope my colleagues are not confused that this is an attack on an amendment which would destroy TAA. It would not. It only focuses very narrowly on the trade portion of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program that the President and the administration pointed to as being ineffective and a program they requested be terminated. Frankly, I don't think it would have a dramatic effect on the entire Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, I am sorry to say.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, as usual, I am offering an amendment that is in compliance with the request of the President of the United States. The administration proposes to eliminate the Economic Development Administration Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs for firms, the TAAF Program. That is the President's message on termination. I remind my colleagues that this provides matching grants so that firms can hire private sector consultants. On behalf of the President and my colleagues, I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

The Senator from Texas wishes to speak. Where is she? She deserted me. On Senator Hutchison's behalf, she supports the amendment.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the Jobs Through Growth Act that was recently introduced by most of my Republican colleagues on this side of the aisle. I wish to highlight the hard work done by my colleagues Senators Paul and Portman in putting this bill together.

This bill is a commonsense alternative to the plan being championed by President Obama and Majority Leader Reid. The differences between our plan and theirs are that we want to create jobs through growth and they want to create jobs through government spending. We believe business creates jobs in America.

It is clear from the President's stimulus 2 that he believes government creates jobs, so there is a fundamental difference between our proposal and theirs. What they have proposed is another stimulus. We tried that. We saw the movie before. It did not work. It added to our debt and deficit. We lost jobs.

My colleagues and I are putting forth a plan to create jobs through sound policies. Most economists will tell you that economic growth is a fundamental part of long-term sustainable job creation, and that is what the plan does. It contains key components--spending reforms, including a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, to give job creators the certainty that Washington will not continue to grow unchecked.

Almost all of us understand from experience over the years that unless the United States of America, our government, is required--as every State and every town and every county and every city in America is required--to have a balanced budget, we will continue the mass deficits that mortgage our children and our grandchildren's futures.

Republican and Democratic Presidents alike over the years have asked for enhanced rescission authority--what we used to call the line-item veto--that would give the President of the United States the ability to eliminate unnecessary, wasteful, earmarked, porkbarrel spending provisions without having to veto the entire bill.

We believe these two measures can bring about a fiscal discipline in this Congress and in this Nation that has been sadly lacking for a long time and has given us the massive debts and deficits--a deficit of nearly $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in America today.

We need tax reform. Is there anyone in America who doesn't believe that the Tax Code, which is this high, doesn't need to be reformed? Our proposal is simple: Cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25; create 3 categories of tax rates in America, and close the loopholes, eliminate the subsidies, and let's give Americans a Tax Code they can trust and believe in--even understand.

Let's bring home the $1.4 trillion in foreign earnings that are trapped overseas in countries where U.S.-based multinational companies do business. Why won't they bring the money home? It is because they have to tax it at 35 percent. It is not that complicated.

Last week, Senator Hagan and I introduced a bill that would provide incentives for that money to come home on the proviso that they create jobs in America and invest in America. According to a recent study done by the chamber of commerce, the repatriation of this $1.4 trillion in corporate earnings currently trapped overseas can result in increasing the gross domestic product by roughly $360 billion and would create as many as 2.9 million new U.S. jobs.

I must say, recently from the other side there was a study that showed this money would have no effect. How in the world could you possibly believe that if you brought $1.4 trillion back home to America it would have no effect? I think it probably shows you can have a study that shows there was indeed a landing of aliens in a city in New Mexico a long time ago.

Reforming the regulatory process costs taxpayers nothing, but it does more for creating jobs than any stimulus program possibly could. There is nothing more constraining to job growth than the adversarial relationship between business and government. Talk to any businessperson, small or large, and they will tell you why they are sitting on large sums of money and not creating jobs and not investing. It is because they don't know which regulation is coming down next that they are going to have to comply with.

Please, I ask my colleagues and my friends, go ask the business people and they will tell you that. They will tell you that the fear and specter of additional regulations has an incredibly

negative affect on their desire to invest and hire. Lifting the prohibitions on offshore energy exploration will immediately create jobs, drive investment, and reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil.

According to the American Energy Alliance, which is a pro-exploratory group, admittedly, permanently lifting the offshore moratoria would result in 1.2 million new U.S. jobs.

Of course, we need to give the President the fast track authority to negotiate trade agreements. I point out that the President is now on his ``listening tour,'' at taxpayers' expense. He was taking credit for the passage of these three free-trade agreements for Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. It only took nearly 3 years.

As far as our bill is concerned, we have a statement from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

Yesterday, a group of Senators, including John McCain, Rob

Portman and Rand Paul, introduced the ``Jobs Through Growth

Act.'' This legislation marks a departure from a ``government

knows best'' approach and instead empowers the private sector

to rescue our economy. As the Chamber outlined in its Six-

Point Jobs Plan, alleviating regulatory burdens, tax

uncertainty, and restoring confidence to invest and grow jobs

is the best way to get the country back on track. This bill

is a step in the right direction and includes a number of the

same broad ideas for creation as the Chamber's plan.

It goes on to say that ``comprehensive tax reform is critical to job creation.'' They believe that reforming the regulatory process is necessary for businesses to begin hiring again, and they also argue for the expanded drilling offshore.

You will hear from various liberal think tanks that we don't create jobs, that this is not a good thing to do, et cetera. But the fact is the chamber of commerce, which I think well knows about job creation, should be paid attention to.

A piece was written in the National Review Online by Douglas Holtz- Eakin, a noted economist and former head of the OMB. In the interest of full disclosure, he was an adviser of mine. He wrote the following:

Senate Republicans have just introduced the ``Real Jobs

Plan.'' As I've long argued, an effective jobs ``plan'' is a

commitment to a sustained environment for long-term growth.

The President's failed proposals have repeatedly proven that

``temporary and targeted'' stimulus is insufficient.

Moreover, his latest effort displays more interest in

politics than growth.

Senators McCain, Paul, and Portman have proposed a plan

that effectively targets job creation at a time when we

desperately need it by incentivizing growth and repealing the

job-killing Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank law. There is

a lot here to like.

Still, inevitably, there will be a war of numbers in which

progressives trot out numbers from Keynesian business cycle

models to argue that the strategy won't work. To anticipate

the debate, here are some highlights of the Real Jobs Plan

and some estimates of the jobs impact:

1. Lower the corporate rate tax to 25 percent, resulting in

an additional 581,000 jobs per year, on average.

2. Reduce the tax on foreign earnings brought back to the

U.S., resulting in 2.9 million jobs.

3. Repeal Dodd-Frank, estimated to cost the U.S. 4.6

million jobs by 2015.

On the so-called Dodd-Frank act, the whole purpose of the Dodd-Frank act was to make sure that no institution in America would ever be too big to fail. My friends, tell me that these institutions aren't too big to fail. We know they have gotten bigger, and we know they are too big to fail. If we went through a similar crisis, we know, because of their size, we would again be forced to use taxpayer dollars to bail them out. The fact is that the Dodd-Frank bill has been a complete failure, as many of us predicted. One of the reasons is because it didn't address the phasing out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It was the housing crisis that started this collapse, and until the day the housing market stabilizes, we will not begin to emerge from this horrible economic situation America finds itself in today.

4. Repeal the ACA, estimated to cost the U.S. economy at

least 800,000 jobs.

5. Lift the offshore drilling moratoria, resulting in 1.2

million U.S. jobs.

6. Prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases,

estimated to cost the economy 1.4 million jobs by 2014.

And, of course, giving the President trade preference authority.

Finally, I will point this out in the Wall Street Journal Political Diary, October 14, 2011: Finally, a GOP Growth Plan.

Senators John McCain and Rand Paul [and Rob Portman] have

drafted an economic growth blueprint that they hope to be the

rallying cry of all congressional Republicans.

The White House and congressional Democrats hope to use the

Senate rejection of Obama jobs plan this week as a campaign

issue against ``do nothing Republicans.'' Senate Democrats

have crowed that ``Republicans have no jobs plan of their

own,'' but that's not true any longer. Senators John McCain

of Arizona and Rand Paul of Kentucky [and Rob Portman] have

drafted a comprehensive economic growth blueprint that they

hope will be the rallying cry of all congressional

Republicans in the weeks ahead. We obtained a copy of the

draft document which includes tax cuts, a balanced budget

amendment, ObamaCare repeal, and a regulatory freeze. . . .

The plan, which would cut corporate tax rates to 25 from 35

is partially paid for by offering a reduced 5 percent tax on

repatriated capital. . . .

The plan won't get close to the 60 votes necessary in the

Senate. But it does establish a polar star for Republicans to

head toward. Republicans got a nice lift for the plan when a

Chamber of Commerce poll asked 1,300 business owners across

the country whether they support the GOP plan of ``permanent

tax cuts and less regulation,'' or the Democratic plan of

temporary payroll tax cuts and public work spending. More

than eight of 10 said they favor the Republican approach.

As they say, let the games begin. Today, the President of the United States, in his visit to areas of the country that have a lot to do, in the view of many, with the upcoming electoral calendar, attacked our plan and attacked it rather vociferously. In fact, I was somewhat taken aback, since the President and his spokesperson had billed his trip as a taxpayer-paid visit. In his remarks, the President was very strongly condemning of the plan that we have put forward. In fact, remember, my colleagues and friends, the President made these remarks on a taxpayer paid-for, riding-in-a-Canadian-bus visit for the next 3 days. This is what, on his listening tour, the President said:

Now it turns out that the Republicans have a plan, too. I

want to be fair. They call--they put forward this plan last

week. They called it the real American Jobs Act, the real

one. That's what they called it, just in case you were

wondering. So let's take a look at what the Republican

American Jobs Act looks like. Turns out that the Republican

plan boils down to a few basic ideas. They want to gut

regulations. They want to let Wall Street do whatever it

wants. They want to drill more, and they want to repeal

health care reform. That's their jobs plan.

Et cetera, et cetera. So on the taxpayer-paid dime, the President is now traveling and attacking the Republican plan--obviously, I think, unfairly.

By the way, there is an article dated October 16 by Richard Wolfe in USA Today:

President Obama will kick off a three-day bus trip through

small towns in politically competitive North Carolina and

Virginia Monday. But White House officials insist the trip is

about jobs, not votes. So much so, in fact, they convened a

conference call to reiterate that point several times,

pointing out that the trip is fully on the taxpayers' dime,

not the Republicans reelection campaign.

So the President has taken to the road, and he spent a number of minutes attacking our plan. I understand that. I think he has, certainly in a political venue, the right and privilege to do that. I think the question might be, though, is that appropriate on the taxpayers' dime, since it is clearly campaigning. I must say again, I have never seen an uglier bus than the Canadian one. He is traveling around on a Canadian bus touting American jobs.

One of the reasons Americans and I and my colleagues are a bit skeptical is because we have seen this movie before. We saw this movie before, and it feels a bit like something we have heard before. In fact, let me read a few quotes. We all know the failure of the last stimulus bill. We all know the President and his economic advisers said, if we passed the last stimulus bill, unemployment would be at a maximum of 8 percent, and it is obviously, we all know, now stuck at over 9. They said it would create millions of jobs, but we all know it didn't. They said it would stimulate our economy, and we know it hasn't. So let me read a couple quotes. This one was February 10, 2009, from President Obama:

It's a plan that will save or create up to four million

jobs over the next two years . . . and the jobs of

firefighters, teachers, nurses, and police officers that

would otherwise be eliminated if we don't provide states with

some relief.

This is from President Obama during the middle of 2009:

We've created and saved, as you said, Joe, at least 150,000

jobs.

This is a quote from Vice President Biden, where he said in ``18 months'' stimulus will ``create 3.5 million jobs . . . literally drop- kicks us out of this recession.''

This is a monumental project, but I think it's doable. But

I just think we got to stay on top (inaudible) and we got to

stay on top of that on a weekly basis. Because this is about

getting this out and spent in 18 months to create 3.5 million

jobs and do--to set--tee this up so the rest of the good work

that's being done here literally drop-kicks us out of this

recession and we begin to grow again and begin to employ

people again.

Those were the remarks of the Vice President at a Recover Plan Implementation Meeting held on February 25, 2009.

My alltime favorite quote is from August 24, 2009, from Vice President Biden:

In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this

well.

Let me repeat that:

In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this

well.

In my wildest dreams, I hope the American people will understand what we are doing with the President's plan and that we will be voting on pieces that probably even a simple majority of the Senate wouldn't have voted for. It is the same thing they tried in 2009 and 2010 and was steadfastly rejected by the American people in the overwhelming vote that took place last November.

What I hope is that once the President gets off the campaign trail, we will sit down and come to an agreement in some areas. All of us agree that simplification of the Tax Code is something the American people want and deserve. All of us know we should try to do what we can to bring home that $1.4 trillion which is now parked overseas. All of us agree that offshore drilling is something we need to accelerate as quickly as possible and do it safely. All of us should agree that middle-income and lower income Americans are the ones who need help the most.

While I am here, I would like to point out that one of the key elements we spent a lot of time on last year--many hours I spent on the floor of this Senate--was trying to combat the program that is now known as ObamaCare or health reform. We find out now that one of the key elements of this health care reform--which I will politely call health care reform--was a program called the CLASS Act.

The CLASS Act was to provide long-term care for senior Americans, which is certainly a worthwhile goal. Thanks to a Member of the Senate, who is no longer here, Senator Gregg, a provision was put in that said the reality of the CLASS Act programs had to match the promises as a matter of law. In other words, Health and Human Services had to provide an actuarial analysis of insurer solvency throughout the 75-year cost of the program. In other words, the Health and Human Services Department was bound by the amendment put through on the floor by Senator Gregg--the former Senator from New Hampshire. So after flailing around for 19 months, the Secretary of Health and Human Services announced it would shutter a voluntary long-term care insurance program that was included in the health care law and throw the issue back to Congress.

It is unfortunate we did not have that same provision in the rest of the bill; otherwise, the whole thing probably would have been junked by now. But because of that amendment, the administration has been forced to junk the CLASS Act. Let me quote from the Wall Street Journal, which reads:

At a minimum the GOP could begin by repealing the Class

program altogether, since its legal authority is still

intact. ``One should never leave a partly loaded gun on the

table even if most of the chambers are empty or just has

blanks,'' writes the American Enterprise Institute's Tom

Miller. He also suggests attaching a few of the more

destructive provisions and forcing Democrats to defend them,

such as Mr. Orszag's Independent Payment Advisory Board of 15

political appointees who have brought unaccountable powers to

control health care markets and health care.

Our suggestion is for a Gregg-like amendment that applies

to the entire health law and not simply Class. If reality

can't match the rhetoric that accompanied the bill--about

fiscal responsibility, bending the cost curve, keeping your

health care if you like your health care and all the other

false promises--then, legally, it should be repealed like

Class. Call it a truth-in-advertising clause. ObamaCare would

collapse in a heartbeat.

I hope we will begin to debate whether the CLASS Act--which now the Health and Human Services Secretary has announced is undoable--should be repealed from the law itself and whether there are other provisions such as that which Senator Gregg, in his foresight, was able to force into the bill at the time of its passage.

By the way, a little more on the CLASS Act. One of the major reasons why it was included was to distort the numbers as to how much money would or would not be saved in the passage of health care reform. Because, clearly, for the first early years--since people would be contributing rather than taking out funds because of retirement age--it would appear to have a significant cost savings impact. Now we will be talking about the real cost impact of the health care reform bill.

I hope in the weeks ahead we can engage in vigorous debate on how we can move this country forward. There are clearly philosophical differences between the two sides, but I hope there are areas where we can find common ground.

The housing crisis is still with us in America. I noticed an article over the weekend in the New York Times that Fannie Mae saw fit to send a huge number of people to some convention in Chicago on the taxpayers' dime. Fannie and Freddie are still responsible for about 90 percent of the mortgages in America--a corrupt institution. Yet Americans, including those in my State of Arizona, are still badly hurting.

I hope we can address the issues that affect this Nation. I hope we can sit down together and work out at least some agreements--such as reform of the Tax Code and others--but, at the same time, we need to, at some point, address the housing issue in America. Until we do--until we get housing costs stabilized in America--I greatly fear--and I see my colleague from Florida whose State has also been very badly hurt by this housing crisis--until we fix the fundamental problems, I fear we will continue to experience very difficult economic times for our citizens.

I note the presence of my colleague--the great astronaut and fine Senator--so I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question? I know he has another subject he wants to address, but would he yield for a question?

Isn't one of the fundamental problems in the housing crisis, in the Senator's State and my State and particularly California, Nevada, and others that were the crest of the wave, that we should have made--and still should be making--an effort to give people a mortgage they can afford to make the payments on rather than throwing them out of their home or have the home empty?

Maricopa County, AZ, has the largest number of vacant homes of any county in America. I will bet in that top 10 list are counties in the State of Florida.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, be next to speak following my remarks.

Mr. President, I support ratification of the three free- trade agreements we are debating. They are long overdue, and they are important to job creation in this country. While we have waited around, these countries have concluded free-trade agreements with other countries, much to the detriment of American exports.

The best example I can cite of that is several years ago, 40 percent of the imports of agricultural products into Colombia were from the United States of America, while today only 20 percent of their agricultural imports are from the United States because while we have been waiting, Colombia has concluded free-trade agreements with other nations which have given them access to their markets while we were not able to expand. One of the ironies of all this is, thanks to a rather complicated process that took place during President Clinton's administration, the results of the Andean trade preference agreements meant there were tariffs on U.S. goods going into Colombia but no tariff on Colombian goods coming into the United States.

But why I am here this afternoon, Mr. President, is because what has been unremarked on--and which was outrageous about this whole process we have been through in these times of fiscal difficulties--is that roughly $1.3 billion is going to be spent on the so-called TAA, trade adjustment assistance. I would like to remind my colleagues the TAA was adopted in order to satisfy many of the concerns of labor and others at the time of the passage of other free-trade agreements, and like other government programs, spending on the TAA has grown and grown and grown and grown.

By the way, this was supposed to be for individuals, and, originally at least, individuals who have lost their jobs as a result of jobs going to the countries which free-trade agreements were entered into.

In 2006, it was $735 million; in 2007, $779 million; and in 2008, $791 million.

But following the so-called stimulus package--and the stimulus was supposed to be temporary--it ballooned to $1.1 billion.

Additionally, according to the Department of Labor, Congress allocated more than $975 million to fund other TAA services, including $575 million for job training. In all, the annual TAA spending for the stimulus expansion totaled approximately $2 billion.

Three weeks ago, the Congress passed an agreement to reauthorize the TAA through 2014. This paved the way for these free-trade agreements to be considered today. The agreement pares back some of the expansions from the 2009 stimulus and funds the program somewhere between the prestimulus and poststimulus levels. This ``compromise,'' which, by the way, was negotiated by Republicans in the House of Representatives, will increase the annual TAA spending by at least $460 million above the prestimulus levels before 2012 and 2013. Therefore, the total cost to taxpayers for the deal to allow these trade agreements to be considered by the Senate will be $1.3 billion through 2014.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the TAA spending legislation passed by this body 3 weeks ago does the following: No. 1, it keeps the 2009 stimulus expansion for service sector workers. The stimulus, by the way, was supposed to be temporary. TAA was originally intended to provide income maintenance and job training to workers from the manufacturing sector. The stimulus bill expanded eligibility to include workers from the service and public sectors. This expansion expired in February, but the agreement restored TAA eligibility for service sector workers.

No. 2, it restored the stimulus expansion of benefits for job losses that are unrelated to free-trade agreements. The agreement retained the stimulus expansion of providing TAA benefits to any workers who lost their jobs to overseas production, not just TAA-certified jobs that were lost to free-trade agreements.

No. 3, it reinstated the stimulus's 160 percent increase in trade adjustment assistance for workers' job training spending. The proposal cemented the stimulus spending expansion of TAA for workers' job training at $575 million a year from $220 million, an increase of $355 million a year.

No. 4, it continued the stimulus's creation of a new and duplicative job-training program. The agreement kept the TAA Community College and Career Training Program, which will dole out $2 billion over the years 2011 through 2014.

So this program cries out for significant reform. The previous administration's agency leader called for FAA deficiencies to be addressed for the displaced workers who need the TAA benefits. In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on June 14, 2007, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor called on Congress to take the ``opportunity to improve the current TAA program to help workers gain the skills needed to successfully compete in the global economy.'' The administration didn't listen and neither did Congress.

Let's look at an example of excess created in the temporary stimulus expansion of the TAA program that taxpayers are still on the hook for. According to a February 2011 study by Senator Coburn entitled, ``Help Wanted: How Federal Job Training Programs are Failing Workers,'' quoting from the study that Senator Coburn brought to this body:

Taxpayers may have a case of indigestion when they learn,

nearly 2 years after the stimulus was enacted, their money is

paying lobstermen, shrimpers and blueberry farmers $12,000

each to attend job training sessions on jobs that they are

already trained to do. The stimulus reauthorized the Trade

Adjustment Assistance for the Farmers program administered by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a program that provides

subsidies to producers of raw agricultural commodities and

fishermen so they can adjust to import competition. Under the

stimulus, TAA benefits were enhanced to focus more on

employment retraining.

Recently, the Department of Labor issued a report on the TAA program which indicated that only approximately 50 percent of the TAA training participants were actually placed in new jobs. While we can be happy for the 50 percent that used the training for new employment, a 50- percent success level is, of course, dismally low. Our obligation should have been to reform and fix the flaws in the program. Instead, we expanded it.

I am a big supporter of America's community colleges. One of the best community college networks happens to be in my home State of Arizona. It has been suggested that the TAA for Community Colleges Program, which was vastly expanded in the stimulus bill, has become nothing but a vehicle to funnel scarce tax dollars to community colleges around the country whether they need the money or not, with no performance reviews, no standards for graduation, and no oversight.

In March 2010, the Senate and House leadership, together with the administration, funded the TAA for Community Colleges Program $2 billion over 4 years. Just last month--conveniently, right before the end of the fiscal year--the Department of Labor rolled out the money to individual community colleges and consortiums of community colleges. The money started flowing without regard to how well the community colleges did at graduating their students or whether there was sufficient TAA need.

Several of the community colleges have received grants of over $2\1/ 2\ million of taxpayer funds while having extremely low graduation rates. Shouldn't we ensure that an institution can actually graduate its students before funneling money to it?

For example, Oklahoma City Community College received $2.7 million. This institution had a graduation rate of 11 percent. If there was any doubt that the administration was using this program to funnel money to community colleges without regard to need or their ability to help dislocated workers receive training, let me just read from the Department of Labor grant announcement issued last week.

The following is a list of the entities in each State that

will be receiving funding. The Department of Labor's

Employment and Training Administration is continuing to work

with these institutions to develop final performance

operating and spending plans.

Earlier this year, the GAO released a study entitled ``Multiple Training and Employment Programs: Providing Information on Collocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies.'' Here is what the GAO reported on Federal employment and retraining programs, including trade adjustment assistance.

Based on our survey of agency officials, we determined that

only 5 of the 47 programs have had impact studies that assess

whether the program is responsible for improved employment

outcomes. The five impact studies generally found that the

effects of participation were not consistent across programs,

with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to

be small, inclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.

So what are we doing? We are going to spend at least $1.3 billion, part of it on programs that clearly the Government Accountability Office says have not been productive in any way and are small, inclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.

There are a lot of questions about the TAA Program. Does the TAA Program provide overly generous benefits to a narrow population? According to an analysis from the Heritage Foundation, based on statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the third quarter of fiscal year 2009 only 1 percent of mass layoffs were the result of import competition or overseas relocation.

Is there evidence that TAA benefits and training help participants' earnings? An analysis by Professor Kara M. Reynolds of American University found ``little evidence that it [TAA] helps displaced workers find new, well-paying employment opportunities.'' In fact, TAA participants experienced a wage loss of 10 percent. The same study found that, in fiscal 2007, the Federal Government appropriated $885.1 million to TAA programs. Of this amount, funding for training programs accounted for only 25 percent.

In 2007, the Office of Management and Budget rated the TAA programs as ``ineffective.'' The OMB found that the TAA Program fails to use tax dollars effectively because, among other reasons, the program has failed to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of achieving its goals.

Let me close by reminding my colleagues how we got to our current predicament. It is mid-October of 2011, 2\1/2\ years since President Obama took office, and we are just now considering

these important trade agreements that were finalized half a decade ago, all because of the White House's insistence on making a temporary stimulus program--the dubious extension of TAA--into a permanent domestic spending program.

This is how George Will summed it up, writing in the Washington Post, on June 8, 2011:

President Obama is sacrificing economic growth and job

creation in order to placate organized labor. And as the

crisis of the welfare state deepens, he is trying to enlarge

the entitlement system and exacerbate the entitlement

mentality.

On May 4, the administration announced that, at last, it

was ready to proceed with congressional ratification of the

agreements. On May 16, however, it announced it would not

send them until Congress expands an entitlement program

favored by unions.

Since 1974, Trade Adjustment Assistance has provided 104,

and then 156, weeks of myriad financial aid, partly

concurrent with the 99 weeks of unemployment compensation, to

people, including farmers and government workers and firms,

even whole communities, that can more or less plausibly claim

to have lost their jobs or been otherwise injured because of

foreign competition. Even if the injury is just the loss of

unfair advantages conferred, at the expense of other

Americans, by government protectionism.

This process should be appalling to the average American who is looking for an improving economy, not special favors to certain special interest groups.

Our national debt has reached unsustainable levels. Congress and the American people face some truly painful choices about how to cut our Federal budget. At a time when some are even considering enormous and dangerous cuts to our defense spending as a way to get our fiscal house in order, we shouldn't be throwing more and more scarce money at a Federal program that, as the GAO points out, is duplicative and possibly ineffective.

There is guilt on both sides of the aisle for the extension of this program. It has not had proper scrutiny, it has not had proper oversight. The studies that have been done have shown that it is practically useless--or certainly not useful--and ineffective; and now, as a price for these free-trade agreements, which I strongly support, we will be laying another $2 billion on the taxpayers of America, unfortunately.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senator Kyl, Senator Hatch, Senator Lee and Senator Barrasso in introducing legislation to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from executing his plan to ban mining on 1 million acres of Federal land in northern Arizona. A companion bill has been introduced by Congressman Trent Franks in the House. The purpose behind this legislation is best outlined in a recent letter that I along with several members of the Senate and House transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senator Kyl, Senator Hatch, Senator Lee and Senator Barrasso in introducing legislation to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from executing his plan to ban mining on 1 million acres of Federal land in northern Arizona. A companion bill has been introduced by Congressman Trent Franks in the House. The purpose behind this legislation is best outlined in a recent letter that I along with several members of the Senate and House transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.