Floor Statements

Madam President, my hope is that we are moving into the homestretch, in terms of being able to pass the trade adjustment assistance legislation.

I strongly support efforts to promote more exports. The President has set a laudable goal of increasing exports. We know that in the export sector, there is an opportunity to make things here, to grow things here, to add value to them here, and then ship them around the world. To promote these export markets and generate the economic growth our country wants, we have to make sure our workers have the latest, most updated skills to make sure they can get those jobs and exports and get American products around the world.

As I indicated yesterday, there is no doubt that the American brand is a hit around the world. Ninety percent of the consumers are outside the United States, and they want our products. My hope is, as I have indicated, that we are moving toward being able to pass this legislation, the trade adjustment assistance, to increase our exports. Because some pretty astonishing comments have been made with respect to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, I wish to take a few minutes this afternoon and make sure we can get some facts out to combat some of the rhetoric.

For example, one comment I have heard repeatedly is that the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is a sop to organized labor. The argument is that the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is just a giveaway to labor unions and that they are the people who want the program; that it is something that is part of the labor priority list. I can tell the occupant of the chair--and I am sure she hears the same thing I do at home--that folks who are members of labor unions don't come up to us and say what they want in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. They say: Senator, I want to have a good-paying job. I want a job where I can support my family and where I have a living wage. That is what I am concerned about right now.

What I am concerned about is China, for example, with their low- interest loans. In some areas, such as solar manufacturing, which I have written the Obama administration about, they are undercutting our solar manufacturers because they are basically giving out free money now. That is what workers come up to Senators and say: Senator, I want a good job, one I can make sure that when I go to bed at night, I will know when I wake in the morning, I will be able to support my family. Labor union folks don't walk up and say: This is what I want from the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program.

The fact is, it has been documented by Mathematic Policy Research that less than half the participants in the TAA were members of a union. Let me repeat that. Less than half of those who participated in trade adjustment assistance were members of a union. In fact, this is a program that is available to all American workers who qualify. When we are talking about applying, in effect, a trade adjustment assistance petition can be filed by any of the following groups: a group of three or more workers, an employer, a labor union, a State workforce official, a one-stop operator or partner or any other person who is designated a duly authorized representative.

This is, to me, the bottom line. In 2009, more than 9 out of 10 petitions for trade adjustment assistance relief were filed by nonunion firms or groups. I will repeat that because we have heard so frequently this is somehow a giveaway to labor or a sop to the labor unions. In 2009, more than 9 out of 10 TAA petitions were filed by nonunion firms or groups. More than two-thirds of the eligible population for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program were not members of a union.

I hope that, at this point in the debate, we can make it clear, we can make it understandable that TAA is not a program only available to labor unions. That is not true. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is not only available to labor unions. TAA is for all Americans. As this debate continues and, as I indicated, hopefully moves into the homestretch, I hope Senators remember that in 2009 more than 9 out of 10 TAA petitions were filed by nonunion firms or groups.

The second area I wish to touch on, in terms of trying to rebut some of these criticisms about the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, is the argument that there is no need to extend eligibility to those in the service sector. In 2009, Congress expanded the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program so service workers who are displaced by trade would be eligible for assistance. There has been criticism of this expansion, and I wish to make sure, again, that Senators and those listening to this debate actually get some of the key facts.

It is important to remember that 82 percent of employment between 2006 and 2010 was in the service sector. To argue that workers in computer programming, finance, accounting, and insurance do not face foreign competition is simply to put our heads in the sand.

A forthcoming paper by Bradford Jensen finds that Americans employed in businesses and professional services face more international competition than workers in the manufacturing sector. Again, when Senators hear this argument that there is no case for extending trade adjustment assistance eligibility to service workers, I hope they will think through the implications of the international competition our workers face in this sector because those in computer programming, in finance, in accounting, and in insurance are important workers in the American economy. They have played a big role particularly in the export sector. I think to arbitrarily say they should not be eligible for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, given what many of them are facing in terms of international competition, isn't right.

The third argument I would like to take on directly is the argument that, in some way, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is almost a duplicative program. Again, the facts show this argument doesn't stand. A Mathematic Policy Research report from last year makes clear that workers who lose their job due to increased imports--surging imports is the way we ought to appropriately characterize it--those folks who are, therefore, eligible for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program because of surging imports tend to be older, often have less education, and have higher prelayoff earnings compared to other unemployed Americans.

That is why the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is different than the unemployment insurance program. It is tailored to meet the distinct needs of a critical portion of the labor force. The workers are older, and often they have less education. The transition, as the occupant of the chair knows, can be gut-wrenching because a lot of these individuals, before their layoffs, were

making good wages. Now they are wondering how they are going to be able to get the skills and how they are going to be able to pick up the knowledge to tap the latest opportunities that are available in American business that is looking to export.

This is a program that doesn't duplicate any other. It is a program that is designed to serve a unique population. I am sure we are going to continue through the rest of the discussion about trade adjustment assistance and see a lot of back and forth between Senators with respect to the merits of the program.

I continue to believe we ought to start, as we analyze it, by remembering this has always been a bipartisan program, No. 1; No. 2, TAA petitions have been approved by Labor Departments in both Democratic and Republican administrations. This has roots in the bipartisan effort to support expanded trade. One study after another shows that expanded trade--particularly tapping export markets--can generate hundreds of thousands of jobs. But there is no question that, as we try to make sure we don't lose a single job in America--even short term--some workers can end up needing some help during a transition from one job to another, and if they have been harmed by surging imports, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is there for them. That is why we ought to reauthorize it.

I think we also ought to recognize it is knitted together with the effort to pass the free-trade agreements because the free-trade agreements are about more exports. To have all the workers we need for the potential export markets, we have to make sure workers who have been laid off have a chance to upgrade their skills.

We will come back to this topic, I am certain, but I hope, in the last few minutes, I have been able to at least offer some concrete, documented facts that make clear that the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is not a sop to organized labor, since, in 2009, the vast majority of those granted relief had nothing to do with a labor union; second, that we have made the case for why service workers, facing aggressive international competition, ought to be eligible for the TAA; third, I hope we have been able to lay out how this program doesn't duplicate any others because this is a unique group who disproportionately uses the program, who is older, often with less education, and the transition can be particularly gut-wrenching because very often they have higher prelayoff earnings compared to other unemployed Americans.

I think we understand the biggest challenge for this Senate is creating more good-paying jobs. In my State, about one out of six jobs depends on international trade. The trade jobs tend to pay better than do the nontrade jobs. That is why I considered it such an honor when Chairman Baucus asked me to chair the Finance Committee's Subcommittee on International Trade. I saw this as an opportunity to grow the Oregon economy and to grow good-paying family wage jobs. Oregon has a very good record in terms of manufacturing. We face a whole host of dramatic challenges right now. For example, I am particularly concerned about where our country is headed in terms of manufacturing in the renewable energy sector. The Chinese are engaged in very aggressive and questionable practices with respect to the Chinese Development Bank. In effect, they are giving free money to companies that can manufacture and undercut the American market. I have asked the Obama administration to investigate this. If they do not, I am certainly going to be looking legislatively at pursuing trade remedies.

Much of what we are faced with in terms of the renewable energy sector, particularly generating jobs in manufacturing in that sector, deals with making sure we have a rules-based trading system. We enjoy the fact that China is a trading partner. Our State gets a significant amount of jobs from exporting goods to China. But the Chinese, like everybody else, have to comply with the rules, and there is a substantial amount of evidence that the rules aren't being complied with as they relate to manufacturing in the solar sector.

That is why I am using my position as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness to get on top of that. We have already lost some solar manufacturers and we shouldn't sit idly by and lose more. That is the kind of challenge we ought to be working on together on a bipartisan basis; not coming to the floor of the Senate and blocking a piece of legislation that gives our workers an opportunity to get ahead--to get ahead in the private sector, to get ahead in the export market, and to be in a position to get the good- paying jobs that are going to be available in the years ahead if we pass legislation to remove trade barriers.

The reality is that in virtually all of these areas, our tariffs are low, which means that around the world countries get to send their products to us and get almost totally free access to our market. Yet, around the world, when we try to ship our products to them, we face very substantial tariffs. That is what we are trying to change here on the floor of the Senate--to level the playing field. Because if we level the playing field, our workers get more out of it than do the workers of other countries. And that, to me, ought to be particularly appealing to Senators now when our folks are hurting and when there is so much pain in communities across this country.

When I am home, I am consistently seeing workers who are walking an economic tightrope--balancing their food bills against their fuel bills and their fuel bills against their medical costs. They go to bed at night wondering if they are going to have a good-paying job in the morning, given what is being reported every day in the newspapers in terms of layoffs and the kinds of challenges our companies are facing in these tough global markets. That is why legislation to promote exports makes sense. It is an opportunity to provide a new measure of economic security to hard-working American families--to tap those export markets. We have to make sure our workers, all of our workers, can get the skills and those kinds of opportunities so they can qualify for those export markets.

This legislation--passing trade adjustment assistance--is a key component of our ability to generate more jobs in the private sector through exports. I certainly hope we are in the homestretch of being able to pass this legislation and then to move on to the agreements, move on to the opportunity to generate more exports, because that means more work--good-paying work--for our people.

Madam President, with that, I yield the floor at this time.

Madam President, before he leaves, I simply want to say to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, who is the ranking Republican on our subcommittee, that I very much enjoy working with him. I have listened carefully to his remarks, and it seems to me what we ought to be addressing in the Senate is our country's opportunities. This is about opportunities. Trade agreements present an opportunity for more exports, something--as the Senator from South Dakota touched on--that is particularly promising for areas such as agriculture. I know in South Dakota and Oregon these are huge opportunities. America is about exports, and free-trade agreements are about opportunities to export.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is about opportunities for our workers to update their skills. In a sense, American business is only as competitive as its workers. That is why, in my view, we have always had this tradition--a bipartisan tradition which I have tried to highlight this afternoon--of making sure we look at every possible opportunity to advance trade.

Before the Senator came to the floor, I think I talked about--and he and I have talked about this--the fact that our tariffs have historically been low compared to the rest of the world; they have big tariffs. We have trade agreements that level the playing field, and our side gets more out of it than everybody else. It has been part of the bipartisan approach to trade. It seems to me we have the chance--and I hope we are heading into the home stretch, because I think the Senator from South Dakota has correctly noted it is certainly time to get this done--to get this to the President's desk; that we can resolve this by saying this is an opportunity to see Congress--the Senate--at its best.

Because we can be in the opportunities business, trade agreements generating opportunities for exports that are

clear winners for the American economy when we have unemployment, economic insecurity, surging imports from Japan.

We need opportunities for our businesses to export, but we also need opportunities for our workers, and I hope that as we move into the home stretch of this discussion, we can see that trade adjustment assistance is an opportunity for our workers to update their skills. As they update their skills, that is going to make American businesses-- particularly our exporters--more competitive because they will have workers who can take the jobs.

I wish to express my appreciation to the Senator from South Dakota. He and I have worked very closely on a whole host of issues, in fact some that I think are going to be a big part of the future debate. The Senator from South Dakota and I want to make sure those who manufacture digital goods in our country and offer digital services get treated fairly in international markets. This is also a promising opportunity: digital goods--software, for example--digital services such as cloud computing. Under the legislation the Senator from South Dakota and I have offered, we can break down some of the barriers to those kinds of products. I am looking forward to working with him on that and a number of other issues.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Hatch amendment. In a time of surging Chinese imports, high unemployment, and widespread economic pain, the Hatch amendment would make it harder for workers, companies, and farmers to obtain trade adjustment assistance in order to be able to compete in the global economy. Specifically, the Hatch amendment would take Congress back to a standard for qualifying for TAA benefits that was a demonstrated failure in the early 1980s.

Chairman Baucus and Chairman Camp have put together a reasonable TAA agreement. It is bipartisan. That bipartisan agreement ought to be preserved, which is why the amendment by the Senator from Utah should be rejected.

I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joseph Scovitch and Danielle Dellerson, Finance Committee staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the Generalized System of Preferences Act.

Mr. President, under the leadership of Chairman Baucus, I have the honor of chairing the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade. That is why I wish to take a few minutes to outline some of the issues I think are relevant to this important debate, about going to bat for workers under the trade adjustment program.

In my home State, about one out of six jobs depends on international trade. The trade jobs tend to pay better than the nontrade jobs. So I have said my philosophy about international trade is, what we ought to do is everything possible to grow things in Oregon and in the country, to make things in Oregon and across America, add value to them here, and ship them somewhere because this is an extraordinary opportunity we have in front of us in terms of expanding exports.

The fact is, the American brand--the brand that is attached to American goods--the exports we send all over the globe are something consumers worldwide want. That is my first point. More than 90 percent of the world's consumers live outside the United States--90 percent-- and they are all potential customers for the products we make in the United States. More customers for American products means American businesses have to make more products. To make more products, they go out and hire more workers. Hiring more workers to make more products to sell to more consumers is the upside of the trade debate we are starting today.

Dismantling trade barriers to American exports gives our businesses access to those new consumers. Doing that creates and supports good- paying jobs--jobs people can support a family on, with a family-wage job.

As I mentioned, trade-related jobs provide better benefits and pay than many of those jobs unrelated to international trade. That is why when we have an opportunity to open markets to American products and American exports we ought to take advantage of it.

Point No. 2 is that our successful efforts to open markets are undermined when foreign governments and foreign competitors cheat. I use that word specifically because cheating is exactly what engaging in unfair trade practices that work to undermine our producers and our innovators is all about. So a central component of our trade policy always has to be enforcement--enforcement of U.S. trade laws and global trade rules.

Senator Snowe, Senator Portman, Senator Blunt, Senator McCaskill, Senator Schumer, Senator Brown, and I have been focused specifically on stopping foreign suppliers from laundering their merchandise to evade U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws. These are the duties that are put in place to remedy the damage that unfairly traded imports cause to American producers. Those foreign trade cheats, especially those from China, have been found guilty of dumping their goods in our country. Instead of stopping the dumping or paying the appropriate duties, the Chinese goods are shipped into a country such as Korea where the goods get repacked into boxes that say ``Made in Korea'' in order to avoid the U.S. trade remedy laws.

All of this has been occurring under the sleepy eyes--the sleepy eyes--of our customs agency. Fortunately, with bipartisan support, the Senate is positioned to act on this matter and address the issue. It will not come a minute too soon.

I was stunned when the staff of my Subcommittee on International Trade basically set up a sting operation, set up a dummy company, and we were amazed at the number of firms, particularly from China, that basically said: Look, we are plenty interested in figuring out how to get around American trade laws.

So these foreign trade cheats are out there. They are looking for ways to exploit the fact that the customs agency has not been tough, has not been relentless, particularly not with respect to protecting our manufacturers.

So point No. 2 is to make sure in the days ahead we put in place a stronger response to trade cheating, where cheats from China and other countries literally launder their merchandise, stamp it as coming from somewhere else, in order to avoid our trade laws.

The third point speaks to the bill we discuss today, and especially to the valuable Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment that I hope we will be voting on shortly. America's ability to compete in the global economy rests on opening foreign markets, enforcing the trade rules, and preparing our workforce--the American workforce, the workforce on which American businesses depend--to be globally competitive for the jobs of tomorrow.

That is what the TAA, trade adjustment assistance, Program is all about. Just as over 90 percent of the world's consumers live outside the United States, so does over 90 percent of the world's workers. Although we have the most productive, innovative workforce in the world, sometimes a foreign producer finds a way to do something better or produce something more efficiently than an American one. The result is, we can have Americans losing jobs through no fault of their own.

So the Congress decided long ago that the best way to respond to global competition was to meet it head on, to meet it directly, and that is what a trade agenda with a robust Trade Adjustment Assistance Program does.

Trade adjustment assistance throws a lifeline to the workers who lose their jobs, and to their families, because we have been open, we have been free, we have been expansionist in the area of trade, particularly when it comes to creating exports. Trade adjustment assistance provides American workers with an opportunity to acquire the skills they need to not just become reemployed but to help American businesses better compete in the global marketplace while those families make their way back to the American economy, where they can earn a wage at which they can support their families.

Trade adjustment assistance is a pretty modest program. The lifeline that is thrown to these workers is modest--just a few hundred dollars a week on average--and the job training that is provided to those workers is typically provided through existing infrastructure such as our community colleges. Trade adjustment assistance provides just enough assistance for resourceful and thrifty and industrious workers to rebound from a trade-related job loss. That, in effect, is what I hope we can start looking at programs such as trade adjustment assistance as being.

What we want these programs to be all about is to be something of a trampoline, where, in effect, people can get a modest amount of assistance, and through that modest amount of assistance be in a position to bounce back to the American economy with skills that have been improved and be in a position to again make a good wage at a company that can be involved in areas such as exports and productivity and innovation-driven services.

For much of the last half of the century, the United States vigorously promoted an open and global economy. As a result, our country launched an effort to become the largest, most dynamic market in the world. Today that global market is more competitive than ever before. The rise of China and India and other emerging markets,

such as Brazil and Russia, provide extraordinary opportunities to our innovators and our producers. But we do not get to be the top economy as a result of some kind of entitlement program. We have to constantly work at it. We have to constantly work at the task of making more innovative and more productive goods and services.

Together, Federal Government officials, businesses, and workers have the opportunity to seize the possibilities that a global economy provides and also overcome its challenges. Certainly, it is more important than ever to do that in the face of growing foreign competition. That means joining again now, on a bipartisan basis, to support trade adjustment assistance.

I would just like to note, having been involved in these issues since I came to the Senate, trade adjustment assistance has historically been a bipartisan program. It has been a program where the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, consistently said we can look at trade, we can look at exports as a vehicle for more family-wage jobs in our country--making things here, growing things here, adding value to them here, and shipping them somewhere. But certainly, in an ever-changing world, we are going to see some of our workers needing the opportunities to upgrade their skills that trade adjustment assistance allows.

So I very much hope my colleagues will support the Casey-Brown-Baucus amendment. It has my full support. It is very much in the spirit of the bipartisan work that has been done on trade adjustment assistance in the past.

Mr. President, I see other colleagues waiting to speak, and with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just before he leaves the floor, let me tell Senator Sessions how much I appreciate the kind words and enjoy working with him. We serve on the Budget Committee together and talk often about economic issues. I wish to tell my colleague that I look forward to working with him on tax and budget issues in the days ahead especially.

Amendment No. 626

Mr. President, what I would like to do now is take just a couple minutes to talk about the amendment offered by the distinguished Republican leader, Senator McConnell, to extend trade promotion authority--what is known as TPA--for 2 years.

I am certainly interested in working with the leader. Certainly, Chairman Baucus has made it very clear that he wants to continue to work on this issue. But I would oppose the McConnell amendment this afternoon, and I want to outline specifically why.

The last time Congress passed trade promotion authority was in 2002, essentially almost one decade ago. The McConnell amendment would simply continue Congress's instructions that were formulated back then, as I said, almost one decade ago. But the fact is, the American economy has changed dramatically since TPA was adopted last, and the overseas trade barriers have changed dramatically. Yet the McConnell amendment simply hasn't kept up with the times. What I wish to do is outline a few examples of areas where we face very different economic challenges.

I would also like to say we talked about this very briefly in the Senate Finance Committee. It was raised by the ranking minority member on our subcommittee, Senator Thune. So it is clear there is an interest in the Finance Committee in working on this issue.

Trade promotion authority is a hugely important and complicated issue. When it was considered the last time, there were extensive hearings in the Finance Committee. Many amendments were authored. There was considerable time devoted to it. That has not been the case at all with respect to reauthorization, and it is why, in particular, I wish to make sure that when the Congress next deals with trade promotion authority, we deal with some of the most important challenges. I am going to outline a few of those.

Digital goods and services would be of special concern that we have looked at in our community. Digital goods, for an example, would be software. Digital services would highlight cloud computing. I know it is something that has been of great interest in Minnesota. It is all about the Internet playing an increasing role in the American and the global economy. It is a platform for global commerce.

I believe the Internet represents the shipping lane of the 21st century. It is

the shipping lane for goods and services, and the 2002 version of trade promotion authority doesn't have the kinds of policies that are necessary to address today's challenges that affect our ability to export American goods and digital services.

A second example would be the question of labor and environmental standards with respect to our trade goals and intellectual property protection for pharmaceutical drugs.

In May of 2007, congressional Democrats and Republicans got together, on a bipartisan basis, to update trade goals with respect to key issues such as labor and the environment and intellectual property protection as it related to pharmaceutical drugs and therapies. These agreements that were entered into in 2007 aren't reflected in the 2002 version of trade promotion authority. So extending the 2002 version of trade promotion authority is another area where, if we simply support the McConnell amendment this afternoon, trade policy has not kept up with the times.

Finally, I would just like to mention China. The fact is, in 2002, we had a relatively short experience with China at the World Trade Organization and, more than ever before, state-owned enterprises play a role in global commerce, particularly given the rise of China. I think all of us agree our trade agenda ought to include promoting discipline so state-owned enterprises do not undermine the American private sector. That requires reconsidering, again, the provisions found in the 2002 version of trade promotion authority.

What it comes down to is that this issue deserves more consideration than a floor amendment with just a modest number of Senators even being aware of the history and the issues and the complexity of the issues. In fact, it would be fair to say that a significant number of Senators on both sides of the aisle weren't even a member of this body back when trade promotion was considered last in 2002.

So what it comes down to for me is, American trade policy is too important to construct on the back of a galloping horse. That, in my view, would be what the Senate would be doing if it simply adopted the McConnell amendment. Chairman Baucus is opposed to this amendment. He, such as myself, has made it clear he is interested in working with colleagues on a bipartisan basis on this issue, and it is an important part of the role of both the executive branch and the Congress in terms of looking at trade policy, and it is particularly important right now when, in a host of areas--I will give another example.

I cited already digital goods and environmental labor standards and state-owned enterprises. We had a very valuable hearing in the Subcommittee on Trade Finance on fishing issues, which are also playing an increasingly important global role in trade agreements and trade policy. That also was not part of any discussion back in 2002. Those issues and others need to be aired. They ought to be aired on a bipartisan basis.

I thought Senator Thune, when we were in the Finance Committee, was right to ask about this issue. There is going to be an opportunity in the days ahead to work on this. Chairman Baucus has made it clear that he wants to work with colleagues on a bipartisan basis on trade promotion authority. I do as well. I already made that pledge to the ranking member of our subcommittee, Senator Thune, who has been very easy to work with on a host of these trade issues. He has made some particularly important points with respect to digital goods and services and the opportunity for our high-tech sector--wrote a good article on it just a couple days ago.

Suffice it to say, there is a lot of interest on our side of the aisle in working on this issue. But I would urge colleagues to resist the McConnell amendment this afternoon when it comes up for a vote for the reasons I have outlined, and there will be time for the kind of debate on trade promotion that I think is appropriate, one that reflects the opportunities and challenges of an economy in 2011 that is very different than the one we were addressing when we last did trade promotion authority in 2002.

In an effort to come up with a unanimous consent agreement that can resolve the question of the upcoming votes, I would just say to Senators on both sides of the aisle that certainly the next hour would be a very good time for Senators who would like to speak on the Casey- Brown-Baucus amendment or the McConnell amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to respond very briefly to my friend from Missouri, and then I know the Senator from California is here, and she wishes to speak for about 10 minutes. I am going to be very brief.

First, I want to thank Senator Blunt for working with us in a bipartisan way. He played a key role in trying to advance this issue and worked very closely with all of us in the Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus, myself, and others.

The Senator from Missouri is absolutely right with respect to the tariff issue. The fact is, the American market is open. We essentially have some of the lowest tariffs around. In many of the markets around the world--and certainly in a number of areas with these three countries--we face much higher tariffs. So if we come up with an effort to, in effect, level the playing field, that means American companies, particularly American exporters, benefit more than do the folks around the world. So I think the point the Senator from Missouri has made is a very valid one.

I also want to thank him for his comment with respect to the trade cheats. We are going to have further discussions with respect to TPA, and I see the distinguished ranking minority member. When we talked about this in committee, I made it very clear I intend to keep working with Senator Hatch and Senator Thune, who is the ranking member of the subcommittee. The challenge is to make sure TPA keeps up with the times. Because if we just reauthorize in 2011 TPA of 2002, we are not going to be dealing with digital goods and digital services, we are not going to be dealing with State-run enterprises, we are not going to be dealing with labor and environmental issues. That is why we are going to have to continue that work in a bipartisan way.

Madam President, Senator Boxer was going to speak next. Then I understand Senator Hatch wants to discuss his amendment, and I intend to remain for that.

With that, I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request? Because 5 o'clock is coming.

I thank my colleague. Certainly, when I am done, the Senator is next to continue his comments.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending McConnell amendment No. 626 be modified with the DeMint language which is at the desk; and Senator Hatch or his designee then be recognized to offer amendment No. 641; that the time until 5 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees for debate on the McConnell amendment, as modified; that at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following judicial nominations: Calendar Nos. 169 and 170; that there be up to 15 minutes of debate on the nominations, equally divided, in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, Calendar No. 169 be confirmed and the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on Calendar No. 170; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session; that upon disposition of the judicial nominations, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the McConnell amendment, as modified; that there be no amendments, points of order or motions in order to the McConnell amendment prior to the vote on the amendment, other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that the amendment not be divisible and it be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of the Finance Committee staff be granted floor privileges during consideration of the Generalized System of Preferences Act: Derrick Riggins, Chris Arneson, Miranda Dalpiaz, Nick Malinak, Cosimo Thawley, Tyler Evilsizer, Stephen McGraw, and Claire Green.

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

Mr. President, I am going to take just a little time this morning to make some remarks with respect to the issue of tax reform and particularly try to lay out why the naysayers, those who say tax reform is not going to make any difference anytime soon or there has not been a lot of groundwork laid--those are the two major arguments they are making--I am going to try to lay out why those arguments are wrong.

To start with, they reflect a misunderstanding about markets, about free enterprise and about what drives the American economy. One of the major reasons consumers are not spending and businesses are not hiring workers is uncertainty about taxes. Enacting fundamental tax reform that encourages the use of free enterprise and markets would start changing consumers' behavior very quickly and business would be in a position in West Virginia and Oregon and everywhere else to start making judgments with respect to investment.

They cannot make judgments right now when we have these piecemeal tax changes that might last 1 year or even less. That is not the way the American economy works. Businesses in West Virginia and Oregon are thinking about investments that can last 5, 10 years and even longer and they need some certainty. I am going to spend some time talking about permanent tax reform, enacted early next year, and making a start at it with our supercommittee. We have the good fortune of having Chairman Baucus on it. I serve on the Finance Committee with him. Chairman Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways, and Means Committee is also on it. What I feel very strongly about--as does the cosponsor of the tax reform legislation I have offered, Senator Coats--is they can make a good start on tax reform in the supercommittee and I am going to outline how that could take place and then Congress could finish it up early next year.

Let's start by talking about how we might see people's behavior start changing and getting consumers back into the marketplace and businesses start making investment decisions. My own view is, if working families knew at the end of the year or early next year they would get real tax relief as we get underway with the tax legislation I have been part of with Senator Coats and Senator Begich and former Senator Gregg and if middle-class folks knew reduced tax rates were going to be in place not just for 1 year but for the long term, they would start making the kinds of decisions they are putting off now because they are uncertain today and they are going to be uncertain next year and the year after if we continue to make these changes in tax law by piecemeal.

My view is, if we saw permanent tax reform enacted early next year, we would see consumers making the kind of purchases they have been postponing in major appliances, new cars, and the other investments they make when they know the economy is going to start picking up because millions of others are going to go back into the marketplace, just like themselves. When businesses see additional demand for their products, they will go out and start hiring more workers.

Let's talk for just a minute about how fundamental tax reform puts more money into the pockets of the middle class. Under the legislation I have been a part of, with two Republicans and Senator Begich, a typical couple making $90,000 would pay close to $5,000 less in taxes, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office.

The reason that is the case is our bipartisan tax reform triples the standard deduction for that middle-class couple. It triples the standard deduction. Let me emphasize it is permanent. I wish to say that again--permanent. It is not something that is going to be jerked away in 1 year. It is something that would be locked into the Tax Code on a permanent basis. Economists and others have repeatedly said, when we make those kinds of changes and typical families know on a permanent basis they will have more money in their pockets, they will go out and make the major purchases they have put off in West Virginia and Oregon over the last few years.

I have talked to folks at coffee shops and know the Presiding Officer spends a lot of time getting out and talking with folks in his state. When I go into coffee shops and I ask people, in particular, about why they are putting off major purchases--they talk about appliances and cars--they say: I don't know what is going to happen. I heard there was this tax break I was going to get for 1 year, and I don't know what is going to happen after that.

We need to make permanent changes in the tax law, give permanent tax relief to middle-class people, and then, based on everything we know about economics, people start changing their behavior. They are not going to do it in a big way without permanent and predictable changes, changes they can count on that will not be jerked away from them in another year or so.

The same principle goes for business. Once they know there is going to be a new tax system in place with reforms. By the way, virtually all the reform plans take the corporate rate today, which is now the second highest in the world, down to somewhere in the mid-twenties as a percentage. Senator Coats and I, with Senator Begich, are at 24 percent. The Bowles-Simpson proposal is a little bit higher, but everybody is pretty much in the same place. If we do that on a permanent basis, businesses will be able to start planning, and they will start planning immediately for the beneficial effects of consumers going back into the marketplace because of permanent changes in the individual Tax Code and because

they know that the tax rates are going to be lower. Once a reform tax system is signed into law, we have more certainty and we would begin to see the spending, hiring, and investment decisions that are not being made today in the American marketplace by the consumer and by business.

It would also be possible to further jump-start the process and generate economic growth even more quickly. For example, as part of permanent tax reform we could allow the consumer an advanced refund of the reduced taxes they will be getting under tax reform. The Congress did that a few years back. It helped a bit in terms of consumer demand but, again, it was short term. Since it was not combined with permanent reform of the Tax Code to provide future certainty, it didn't stimulate as much demand either in the short term or the long term as it might have if it were coupled with permanent reform. But it did help.

The bottom line is that enacting fundamental tax reform now would provide immediate benefits to the economy by ending the uncertainty that I happen to believe is strangling our prospects for real, significant, long-term economic growth. We all understand the American tax system is an anti-growth mess. It is riddled with loopholes and tax dodges. I sit on the Senate Finance Committee, and for a big part of the tax system today the language is pretty much incomprehensible gibberish. So we do need to make these changes.

Now I wish to get into this issue of whether it is not going to be possible to do tax reform now because the groundwork hasn't been laid. I am sure the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has heard this argument: Gosh, we could do it in 2013; we ought to spend more time studying it--and all of that. I will tell my colleagues that the uncertainty of putting it off again going to continue to harm the economy--in fact, I predicted after the lameduck session of the Congress in 2010 that unless we get people moving in a bipartisan way on tax reform, we would have the same debate in the lameduck session of the 2012 Congress--exactly the same debate--about whether we are going to extend the Bush tax cuts on a temporary basis.

So if we aren't successful in pushing permanent tax reform onto the agenda, that is what will happen. We will have the same debate in the lameduck session in the 2012 Congress that we had during the lameduck session in the 2010 Congress, which will be about, once again, trying to patch up this dysfunctional anti-growth tax system we have in our country.

So I wish to spend a few minutes addressing the claim that it is not possible to do tax reform now because the groundwork hasn't been done. That is awfully puzzling to me, given all of the tax reform proposals that are out there now and how similar they are. For example, when Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson came to the Senate Budget Committee, they said point-blank that they modeled their tax reform recommendations after the bill that Senator Gregg and I had spent week after week for 2 years working on. That was, of course, flattering. We were happy about that. But the fact is, going all the way back to some of the studies done by the Commission appointed by President George W. Bush and then highlighted by the work done for President Obama, the Volcker Commission, there has been an awful lot of common ground.

For example, the tax rates under all of these major proposals involve, on the individual side of the Tax Code, taking the country from six major brackets to three major brackets. The Bowles-Simpson proposal comes in around 12 percent for the lowest rate, 22 percent for the rate in the middle, and 29 percent for the rate at the top.

The proposal I have been part of with former Senator Gregg and Senator Coats and our colleague and friend, Mark Begich, we are a bit higher than that. That is because under our proposal we didn't make changes with respect to the mortgage interest deduction and the charitable deduction or the changes with respect to middle-class folks who depend on their employer for their health care and their retirement. So the point is, we have something we can have a real debate on right now.

Let me highlight one other point. We touched on it yesterday when our group of more than 30 senators got together. The Wyden-Coats-Begich proposal has been scored by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the committee that specifically looks at the impacts of changes in tax law. So if the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the Presiding Officer of the Senate, wants to come in and make a modification in tax law--for example, adjust the rates, say, in these three brackets one way or another, because we have the numbers now from the Joint Committee on Taxation, and it is the only proposal--our bill, the only proposal--they have scored, we can give to the Senator from West Virginia and any other Member of the Senate--the other 98 Senators not here--we can give them the actual numbers that have been furnished by the official scorekeeper, the Joint Committee on Taxation, so we can be in a position to have a real debate.

There has been an enormous amount of groundwork done on this issue. I have already mentioned the similarity and reforms on the individual rates. The corporate rate reform proposals are similar. Repealing the alternative minimum tax is in our bill. It is in all of the bills. We understand what a crushing burden this alternative minimum tax is.

We have middle-class folks all over America, and the Presiding Officer probably has somebody who, say, is on the police force in a town in West Virginia, and perhaps that police officer's spouse is a teacher, and they can be filling out their taxes twice with this bureaucratic nightmare called the alternative minimum tax. It wasn't intended for those kinds of people. It was intended for wealthier people who had managed to get out of paying taxes altogether.

So we are in a position to move forward. What I and others have said is that if we started in the supercommittee by laying a baseline, a foundation--they already have an opportunity for simplicity by moving from those six brackets to three; they already have an opportunity on the corporate rate where essentially all of the reforms are in the vicinity of going from 35 percent to the mid-twenties, all of the reforms talking about abolishing the alternative minimum taxes, all of the reforms talking about getting taxpayers, individuals, and businesses off the roller coaster of constant tax changes--the supercommittee could make a very significant start on major tax reform by the end of the year, and then early next year we could have a guaranteed legislative process.

Let me use those words specifically. We could have a guaranteed legislative process where the Finance Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Baucus, and the Ways and Means Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Camp, could enact permanent tax reform by early next year.

I have already talked about how markets work. I think if this holiday season the American consumer can have a sense that we are going to make a break with tax policy as we know it today--we are going to stop all of these piecemeal, temporary changes, and we are going to make permanent changes that are going to be built around reform principles which are widely accepted--ever since the 1980s when Democrats and Ronald Reagan worked together on tax reform, the fundamentals of tax reform have been very clear. They are all about eliminating preferences--all of these special interest tax breaks and dodges and loopholes and preferences, eliminating them--and using those dollars to hold down the marginal rate, the rate we pay on the last dollar we earn while keeping progressivity, while keeping a sense of fairness.

Those principles are very clear. All the reform proposals are based on them. It sure seems to me if middle-class people can have the certainty of knowing that tax policy is going to change so they can start making decisions about their economic future and have a real sense that it isn't going to just change in a year, that it isn't just temporary, I think we will start seeing beneficial changes in the American marketplace very quickly. That, of course, is what tax reform is all about. It is about getting consumers back into the marketplace and about businesses growing again because they know they are going to have more consumers and

they know they are going to be in a better position to compete in tough global markets. That means jobs.

I wish to wrap up by talking about tax reform and jobs--and, remember, we have not had fundamental tax reform for a quarter century. For a quarter century, this country has been making almost one tax change a day--almost one tax change a day--thousands and thousands of tax changes cumulatively. Talk about what that means for uncertainty for a business and a consumer. We can make a break with that and do what was done in 1986, which translated into a big boost for our economy.

I wish to give the numbers specifically so folks will see what this tax reform issue is all about. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the 2 years after the 1986 tax reform bill our country created 6.3 million new jobs. I said 6.3 million new jobs. That sounds pretty good. I think that would go over pretty well at a coffee shop in West Virginia, and it certainly does in Oregon.

I am not going to come to the floor and say every one of those jobs is due to tax reform. There are a host of issues that go into judgments with respect to why consumers buy those appliances and those basic necessities and why businesses invest and hire. But I will tell my colleagues one thing: We couldn't have generated 6.3 million new jobs in the 2 years after the 1986 tax reform bill if we had seen a tax reform proposal enacted that didn't make sense for the American economy. It wouldn't have happened.

Clearly, consumers and businesses believed this was a proposal moved by a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, and a host of very progressive Democrats--folks such as Congressman Dick Gephardt who later ran for President with strong backing of American labor. They came together and created 6.3 million new jobs in 2 years with the kinds of reforms that Senator Coats and former Senator Gregg and Senator Begich and I advocate now, that are in line with the fundamental thinking of the Bowles-Simpson proposal, the reforms proposal by former President George Bush, and President Obama's own commission directed by Paul Volcker.

We have a chance now to make fundamental changes--fundamental changes--that will change the direction of our economy and the psychology of the American marketplace. In this debate, we can talk, for example, about the issues that are front and center with American workers. I am certain that in those coffee shops in West Virginia, one of the things that is said again and again is: Senator, make sure you keep the jobs here. Keep them at home. We are tired of all those jobs going offshore.

Senator Coats and I have a proposal that takes away the tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas and uses those dollars to create jobs here at home--red, white, and blue jobs, jobs that pay good wages here in the United States because we change tax policy and make it more attractive to do business in the United States.

We can talk about the various ways to do it. There is discussion about a territorial system, there is discussion about a worldwide taxation system for the multinational corporations. The bottom line-- again, reflected in all of the reform proposals--is that competitive rates, which means lowering rates for small business and businesses of all sizes doing business in the United States, will help us create more jobs, and they will be red, white, and blue jobs. They will be jobs here in the United States.

So I assume this weekend--whether it is in coffee shops or on talk shows or wherever--people are going to be talking about this discussion about taxes, and they will say: Oh, I don't know if those folks in Washington are going to get anything done. And if they do anything, it will probably be a temporary thing, and they will all talk about why, if you had real tax reform, it might not do anything soon. And, well, it will take a lot more study, and that sort of thing.

I have been convincing this morning about why I believe permanent tax reform--permanent tax reform--will start changing the behavior of consumers in the marketplace, get them back into the marketplace, buying those products that fuel a consumer-driven economy. They will start doing it quickly if they see permanent tax reform enacted. I hope I have been able to clearly outline why a great deal of groundwork has been done already to allow us to move forward--not do the entire tax reform effort in the 6 or 8 weeks that the supercommittee has, but to get a foundation, a baseline in place, a baseline that is built around these areas of consensus, changes that are advocated, essentially, by all the reform proposals, and then allow the Senate Finance Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Baucus, and the House Ways and Means Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Dave Camp, to use the first few months of next year with their committees--the committees of jurisdiction; the Finance Committee here in the Senate, and the Ways and Means Committee in the other body--that they take the first 90 or 120 days to enact permanent tax reforms.

I think that will be a huge boost for the American economy. I think it will change the behavior of American consumers and American business because that is what markets do. They react when positive and permanent changes are put in place.

This can be thoroughly bipartisan. It was in 1986 when a whole host of quite progressive Democrats got together with Ronald Reagan. I have had the pleasure, over the last few years, to work with two outstanding Members on the other side of the aisle, former Senator Gregg and Senator Coats, and Senator Begich of Alaska, a former small businessperson.

This is not like health care; we have done it before. The reform proposals are very much built around the same sort of principles which were the fundamentals of tax reform in 1986. While I know there is going to be considerable debate this weekend about whether tax reform can be done, whether it is going to change anybody's behavior or change anybody's behavior soon, I wanted to weigh in and outline why looking at the principles of the market, I believe, is going to change consumer behavior, change consumer and business behavior for the better, and that there has been a lot of groundwork laid that we can build on.

There is an opportunity, an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber to come together and take steps, steps that will end this anti-growth mess of a tax system, and give our consumers and businesses the certainty and predictability they need to grow, to come back into the American economy.

We will talk some more about this on the floor of this great body in the days ahead. I just want the American people to know this is an opportunity where, if there is a will to do permanent tax reform, there is a way to get it done.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my home State of Oregon has many towering and majestic features, such as our iconic Mount Hood and our beautiful State tree, the Douglas fir. Senator Mark O. Hatfield, who passed away on August 7, stood head and shoulders above all of them.

Last night, the Senate passed S. Res. 257, a resolution in respect of the memory of Senator Hatfield. This afternoon, Senator Merkley and I, with colleagues of both parties, would like to reflect on the extraordinary legacy of our special friend, Senator Mark Hatfield.

For me, Senator Hatfield's passing this summer, just as it seems the Congress has become embroiled in a never-ending series of divisive and polarizing debates and battles, drove home that Senator Hatfield's approach to government is now needed more than ever in our country.

Senator Hatfield was the great reconciler. He was proud to be a Republican with strongly held views. Yet he was a leader who, when voices were raised and doors were slammed and problems seemed beyond solution, could bring Democrats and Republicans together. He would look at all of us, smile and always start by saying: ``Now, colleagues,'' and then he would graciously and calmly lay out how on one issue or another--I see my friend, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, who knows this so well from their work together on Appropriations--it might one day be a natural resources question, it might one day be a budget issue or a health issue or an education issue, but Senator Hatfield had this extraordinary ability to allow both sides to work together so an agreement could be reached, where each side could achieve some of the principles they felt strongly about. They would not get

them all, but they would get a number of them. That, of course, is the key to what is principled bipartisanship.

It was not very long ago, it seems, when Senator Hatfield walked me down that center aisle, when I had the honor of being selected Oregon's first new Senator in almost 30 years. I remember coming to the Senate, a new Senator, and watching Senator Hatfield at work. Sometimes he would be with Senator Kennedy and a big flock of the Senate's leading progressives, and sometimes he would shuttle over to visit with Senator Dole and a big group of conservatives. Somehow the public interest was addressed.

The question then becomes: How did he do it? What was the Hatfield approach all about? To me, Senator Hatfield was religious, but he was never intolerant. He was idealistic, but he was never naive. He was willing to stand alone but never one to grandstand.

But it was not his public life that shaped his belief and his principles. Those were forged in the most hellish of places: World War II in the Pacific. As a landing craft officer in the U.S. Navy, Senator Hatfield witnessed firsthand the battles at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. He was one of the first Americans to see the devastating effects of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

Later, he served in French Indochina, where he saw the economic disparities that would later lead to war in Southeast Asia. Those images remained with him throughout his life, acting as a touchstone for his belief that the world should be a safer and more peaceful place. It was Senator Hatfield's beliefs--those beliefs--that served as the foundation for his career in the Senate and for his opposition to the Vietnam war and to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Senator Hatfield was a major player on the national stage. At the same time, he never forgot our home State or strayed very far from his approach of trying to bring people together. I see our friend, Senator Alexander, on the floor, who also has had a lot of experience on natural resources issues.

I can tell my friends on both sides of the aisle that watching Senator Hatfield champion the need for family-wage jobs in the forest products sector, while at the same time being a champion of environmental protections of wilderness areas and scenic rivers, was like a classroom in the effort to come up with sound public policy.

When colleagues come to our home State, they will have an opportunity to go to the Columbia River Gorge, a special treasure. We had a big anniversary recently on the anniversary of the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area. Senator Merkley and I were there. That never could have happened without that unique ability of Senator Hatfield to bring people together, and he went into every nook and cranny of our State, communities that barely were bigger than a fly speck on the map. He would make their roads better and their schools better and their health care better, again by bringing people together.

I know colleagues are waiting. I would simply wrap up by saying that my State has lost a great son. The Senate has lost one of its former giants. Our Nation has lost a man who represented honesty and decency in public service. I will never, ever forget how much Senator Hatfield has meant to my home State of Oregon.

I note Senator Merkley is here who served as one of Senator Hatfield's interns as well as Senator Alexander and Senator Cochran. I think we have, through the graciousness of Senator Reed and Senator McConnell, time for all our colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, would my colleague yield?

I appreciate that, and I certainly don't want to interrupt his very eloquent remarks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for tributes to former Senator Hatfield be extended until 3:30 so that my friend and colleague can speak, as well as Senators Leahy, Alexander, Cochran, Bingaman, and Levin, who all wish to speak.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me thank Chairman Leahy for his kind and gracious thoughts. I know Senator Hatfield was very fond of the Senator as well. You have represented his values very well. I thank the Senator for those remarks.

Mr. President, this afternoon we heard tributes to former Senator Mark Hatfield from a bipartisan group of Senators. I would like to add to those tributes by including in the Congressional Record the eulogy that Senator Hatfield's son Visko delivered at his father's Memorial Service.

I ask unanimous consent that the following statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I think we have seen in the last half hour, almost going on an hour, the enormous goodwill that Senator Hatfield generated in the Senate, with Democrats

and Republicans alike coming to the floor. I just wanted to wrap up with one last comment.

Senator Hatfield did not serve alone. He was accompanied through his extraordinary public service journey that we have heard discussed today on the Senate floor by a remarkable woman, Antoinette Hatfield. For those of us who knew Mrs. Hatfield, the only way we could sum her up would be to say: What a woman. Whip smart, boundless energy, persistent in a way that made it clear she was going to push hard for what was important, but always in a way that left you with a sense that she would be standing up for what was right and almost invariably with her husband standing up for our State.

My colleague in the Chair, the Presiding Officer, Senator Merkley, described his experiences with Senator Hatfield very eloquently. We have heard that from one Senator after another. But I thought it was appropriate this afternoon--as many Senators knew Mrs. Hatfield and, I think, share my views--and important to note that Senator Hatfield often said--and my colleague will recall it as well--he could not have made the contributions to Oregon without having at his side, having the good counsel, enjoying the affection of this wonderful woman, Antoinette Hatfield.

So as the Oregon delegation in the Senate wraps up these tributes, we simply want to acknowledge not just Senator Hatfield's contributions but the chance we have had to be with Mrs. Hatfield in work situations and personal situations, and we wish to express our gratitude for all she has done for decades now working with her husband, working with Oregonians to make Oregon a better place.

This afternoon, Antoinette Hatfield, as well as her late husband, has our undying gratitude.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to briefly address S. 1458, the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2012, which has now been reported by the Select Committee on Intelligence. I know that the chair and vice chair of the committee, Senator Feinstein and Senator Chambliss, along with their respective staff, have worked hard on this bill, and I support nearly every provision in it. However, I strongly disagree with the decision to include a 3-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 in this bill, and it is my intention to object to any request to pass this bill by unanimous consent. Consistent with my own policy and Senate rules, I am announcing my intention to object by placing a notice in the Congressional Record.

As most of my colleagues remember, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act in 2008 in an effort to give the government new authorities to conduct surveillance of foreigners outside the United States. The bill contained an expiration date of December 2012, and the purpose of this expiration date was to force Members of Congress to come back in a few years and examine whether these new authorities had been interpreted and implemented as intended.

I believe that Congress has not yet adequately examined this issue and that there are important questions that need to be answered before the FISA Amendments Act is given a long-term extension.

The central section of the FISA Amendments Act, the part that is now section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act itself, specifically stated that it was intended to address foreigners outside the United States, and it even required the Attorney General to develop procedures designed to make sure that any individuals targeted with this new authority are believed to be outside the United States. So one of the central questions that Congress needs to ask is, Are these procedures working as intended? Are they keeping the communications of law-abiding Americans from being swept up under this authority that was designed to apply to foreigners?

I wanted to know the answer to this question, so Senator Udall of Colorado and I wrote to the Director of National Intelligence if it was possible to count or estimate the number of people inside

the United States whose communications had been reviewed under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. The response we got was prompt and candid. The response said ``it is not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed under the authority'' of the FISA Amendments Act.

I should be clear that I do not plan to accept this response as a final answer. I understand that it may be difficult to come up with an exact count of the number of people in the United States whose communications have been reviewed, but I believe Congress at least needs to obtain an estimate of this number so that people can understand the actual impact of the FISA Amendments Act on the privacy of law-abiding Americans.

During the markup of the intelligence authorization bill, Senator Udall of Colorado and I proposed an amendment that would have directed the inspector general of the Department of Justice to review the implementation of the FISA Amendments Act and attempt to estimate how many people inside the United States have had their communications reviewed under this law since it was passed 3 years ago. Our amendment also would have directed the inspector general to examine other important aspects of the FISA Amendments Act, including the problem of recurring compliance violations, and report back to Congress within 1 year.

I regret that the amendment that Senator Udall of Colorado and I offered was not adopted, but I obviously plan to keep trying to get more information about the effects of this law. I hope that I will find out that no law-abiding Americans, or at least very few, have had their communications reviewed by government agencies as a result of this law, but I believe that I have a responsibility to get concrete facts rather than just hope that this is not the case. And I believe that it would be not be responsible for the Senate to pass a multiyear extension of the FISA Amendments Act until I and others who have concerns have had our questions answered.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to amend this bill, and I am hopeful that they will be willing to modify it to address the concerns I have raised. In the meantime, I should be clear that it is my intention to object to any request to pass the current version of S. 1458 by unanimous consent.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the PURPA PLUS Act.

In my home State we have numerous emerging small renewable energy technologies, such as wave energy buoys, hydropower turbines in irrigation canals, biomass burning cogeneration facilities and rooftop solar installations. Like Oregon, many States have sought to advance new electricity technologies by providing these kinds of projects with higher power purchase rates for their power than utility companies normally pay for electricity. These incentive rates allow individuals and small businesses to recover money they invest in solar panels or other electricity generation projects over a reasonable period of time.

The PURPA PLUS Act simply provides States the clear legal authority to set these incentive rates for small renewable energy projects. Currently, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, has exclusive jurisdiction over wholesale energy prices. Under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, PURPA, FERC regulates the price that utility companies pay for electricity from small, independent power providers and that rate can be no higher than what it would normally cost a utility company to buy additional power, known as ``avoided cost''. My bill would transfer the authority for setting power purchase rates for small power projects of less than 2 megawatts from FERC to the States. This transfer is voluntary. If a State chose to exercise this authority to promote small wind energy development, or solar, or cogeneration projects, it could. If a State chose not to use this authority, FERC would continue to regulate these projects as before. By capping the project size at 2 megawatts, the bill only extends this new authority for small projects that are providing very small amounts of power to the local utility company. It would leave regulation of large wind farms, hydroprojects and other large renewable energy projects that often sell their power to out-of-state customers unchanged. Conversely, it shouldn't be necessary for the Federal Government to get involved in setting rates for solar panels on top of a house or apartment building.

At a time when both State legislatures and the Federal Government are tightening their purse strings on grants, loans and tax incentives for the development of renewable energy projects, this legislation would give State public utility commissions another tool to promote small renewable resources. In Oregon, the State legislature and State utility commission have already established a pilot program to spur residential rooftop solar projects.

Oregon's utility commission also has a program that allows net metering of renewable customer-produced energy where customers are charged for the extra energy they buy from the utility company minus the amount of electricity produced themselves. This bill will simply provide these programs stronger legal footing, and allow States to expand these sorts of programs if they wish.

While I acknowledge that the power from these small projects may be more expensive than a large central generation station powered by coal or gas, I believe that States should be able to consider the associated benefits of small renewable power and set higher prices when the benefits outweigh the costs if they choose. Benefits of small renewable energy projects include local job creation, less investment in high- voltage transmission lines, diversity in an area's power generation portfolio, and the environmental benefits of green energy.

The bill has the support of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which represents the individual State commissions, as well as the Solar Energy Industry Association, the Distributed Wind Energy Association, the Clean Coalition and the Oregon Public Utility Commission. I am very pleased to be introducing this bill with my colleague on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Coons. I hope that many of our colleagues will join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Promoting Accountability and Excellence in Child Welfare Act, a bill that would pave the way for new innovations that improve the lives and well-being of vulnerable children and their families.

The Federal government spends roughly ten times as much money on foster care as it does on preventative services, when foster care is, in nearly every case, the worst possible outcome for a child. The Promoting Accountability and Excellence in Child Welfare Act would establish a 5-year grant program to give States and localities greater flexibility to implement comprehensive reforms to existing child welfare programs provided they can demonstrate success in improving child well-being. This flexibility would allow States to use early- intervention techniques to prevent youth from entering foster care, heightened reunification or adoption practices to decrease a child's time in care, and strengthened support services to ensure that children and youth do not fall behind their peers while they remain in foster care. Importantly, this act establishes strong performance measures that allow successful practices to serve as scalable models.

Children and families that come into contact with the child welfare system are often served through multiple local, State, and Federal agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Too often, these agencies operate in silos, with the effects playing

out at the State, local, and even individual level. This act promotes collaboration by requiring an inter-agency working group to identify existing Federal resources and streamline them to reduce duplication and allow grantees to access additional services and funding streams.

States and localities have proven their ability to save money through innovation while also working to promote the best interest of children and families and the Federal government often turns to state best practices to improve national laws. The history of subsidized guardianship serves as one such example. Due to an all-time high in the number of children in State foster care, in 1996 Illinois was granted the authority to allow grandparents, aunts, uncles and other adult relatives to receive Federal foster care payments if they opened their homes permanently to their relative children in foster care. Raising a child is expensive and these modest payments gave relatives the financial means to care for their kin.

Allowing children and youth to remain with relatives is not only a compassionate way to prevent unnecessary disruptions in a child's life and keep families together, it also saves money. The Illinois demonstration proved that children and youth did better living with relative caregivers than they did when they remained in foster care. In addition, offering guardianship assistance to relatives actually increased the odds that they would be adopted. Due to the success of kinship care in Illinois and other States, the Federal government now realizes a cost savings by reimbursing States for a portion of the cost of offering guardianship assistance. The Promoting Accountability and Excellence in Child Welfare Act would further enable such innovations and savings while improving child well-being.

Furthermore, the legislation directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress with recommendations on how to update Federal foster care financing. Under current law, eligibility for Federal foster care assistance remains tied to the obsolete AFDC program, meaning each year fewer children in foster care are eligible for Federal funding. As a result, States are required to take on an ever-increasing share of foster care financing. This structure forces States to compensate by drawing funds from other programs such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, and the Social Security Block Grant, SSBG, to provide for children in care.

As a country, we cannot afford to let children fall through the cracks of the many systems that exist to serve them. By targeting our resources, improving collaboration, spurring innovation, and, above all, holding ourselves accountable, we can systemically serve the best interest of at-risk children, their families and communities, and the Nation as a whole.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the PURPA PLUS Act.

In my home State we have numerous emerging small renewable energy technologies, such as wave energy buoys, hydropower turbines in irrigation canals, biomass burning cogeneration facilities and rooftop solar installations. Like Oregon, many States have sought to advance new electricity technologies by providing these kinds of projects with higher power purchase rates for their power than utility companies normally pay for electricity. These incentive rates allow individuals and small businesses to recover money they invest in solar panels or other electricity generation projects over a reasonable period of time.

The PURPA PLUS Act simply provides States the clear legal authority to set these incentive rates for small renewable energy projects. Currently, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, has exclusive jurisdiction over wholesale energy prices. Under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, PURPA, FERC regulates the price that utility companies pay for electricity from small, independent power providers and that rate can be no higher than what it would normally cost a utility company to buy additional power, known as ``avoided cost''. My bill would transfer the authority for setting power purchase rates for small power projects of less than 2 megawatts from FERC to the States. This transfer is voluntary. If a State chose to exercise this authority to promote small wind energy development, or solar, or cogeneration projects, it could. If a State chose not to use this authority, FERC would continue to regulate these projects as before. By capping the project size at 2 megawatts, the bill only extends this new authority for small projects that are providing very small amounts of power to the local utility company. It would leave regulation of large wind farms, hydroprojects and other large renewable energy projects that often sell their power to out-of-state customers unchanged. Conversely, it shouldn't be necessary for the Federal Government to get involved in setting rates for solar panels on top of a house or apartment building.

At a time when both State legislatures and the Federal Government are tightening their purse strings on grants, loans and tax incentives for the development of renewable energy projects, this legislation would give State public utility commissions another tool to promote small renewable resources. In Oregon, the State legislature and State utility commission have already established a pilot program to spur residential rooftop solar projects.

Oregon's utility commission also has a program that allows net metering of renewable customer-produced energy where customers are charged for the extra energy they buy from the utility company minus the amount of electricity produced themselves. This bill will simply provide these programs stronger legal footing, and allow States to expand these sorts of programs if they wish.

While I acknowledge that the power from these small projects may be more expensive than a large central generation station powered by coal or gas, I believe that States should be able to consider the associated benefits of small renewable power and set higher prices when the benefits outweigh the costs if they choose. Benefits of small renewable energy projects include local job creation, less investment in high- voltage transmission lines, diversity in an area's power generation portfolio, and the environmental benefits of green energy.

The bill has the support of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which represents the individual State commissions, as well as the Solar Energy Industry Association, the Distributed Wind Energy Association, the Clean Coalition and the Oregon Public Utility Commission. I am very pleased to be introducing this bill with my colleague on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Coons. I hope that many of our colleagues will join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Promoting Accountability and Excellence in Child Welfare Act, a bill that would pave the way for new innovations that improve the lives and well-being of vulnerable children and their families.

The Federal government spends roughly ten times as much money on foster care as it does on preventative services, when foster care is, in nearly every case, the worst possible outcome for a child. The Promoting Accountability and Excellence in Child Welfare Act would establish a 5-year grant program to give States and localities greater flexibility to implement comprehensive reforms to existing child welfare programs provided they can demonstrate success in improving child well-being. This flexibility would allow States to use early- intervention techniques to prevent youth from entering foster care, heightened reunification or adoption practices to decrease a child's time in care, and strengthened support services to ensure that children and youth do not fall behind their peers while they remain in foster care. Importantly, this act establishes strong performance measures that allow successful practices to serve as scalable models.

Children and families that come into contact with the child welfare system are often served through multiple local, State, and Federal agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Too often, these agencies operate in silos, with the effects playing

out at the State, local, and even individual level. This act promotes collaboration by requiring an inter-agency working group to identify existing Federal resources and streamline them to reduce duplication and allow grantees to access additional services and funding streams.

States and localities have proven their ability to save money through innovation while also working to promote the best interest of children and families and the Federal government often turns to state best practices to improve national laws. The history of subsidized guardianship serves as one such example. Due to an all-time high in the number of children in State foster care, in 1996 Illinois was granted the authority to allow grandparents, aunts, uncles and other adult relatives to receive Federal foster care payments if they opened their homes permanently to their relative children in foster care. Raising a child is expensive and these modest payments gave relatives the financial means to care for their kin.

Allowing children and youth to remain with relatives is not only a compassionate way to prevent unnecessary disruptions in a child's life and keep families together, it also saves money. The Illinois demonstration proved that children and youth did better living with relative caregivers than they did when they remained in foster care. In addition, offering guardianship assistance to relatives actually increased the odds that they would be adopted. Due to the success of kinship care in Illinois and other States, the Federal government now realizes a cost savings by reimbursing States for a portion of the cost of offering guardianship assistance. The Promoting Accountability and Excellence in Child Welfare Act would further enable such innovations and savings while improving child well-being.

Furthermore, the legislation directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress with recommendations on how to update Federal foster care financing. Under current law, eligibility for Federal foster care assistance remains tied to the obsolete AFDC program, meaning each year fewer children in foster care are eligible for Federal funding. As a result, States are required to take on an ever-increasing share of foster care financing. This structure forces States to compensate by drawing funds from other programs such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, and the Social Security Block Grant, SSBG, to provide for children in care.

As a country, we cannot afford to let children fall through the cracks of the many systems that exist to serve them. By targeting our resources, improving collaboration, spurring innovation, and, above all, holding ourselves accountable, we can systemically serve the best interest of at-risk children, their families and communities, and the Nation as a whole.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Idaho, Sen. Mike Crapo, in introducing the Geothermal Tax Parity Act of 2011. This legislation will modify an existing investment tax credit for geothermal energy authorized under Section 48 of the Federal tax code. Although both solar energy and geothermal energy projects are eligible for an investment tax credit under Section 48, they are not equal. While I am a strong supporter of solar energy technology and support the solar energy tax credit, I am also a strong advocate for having a level playing field when it comes to government incentives. That is why this bill is called the Geothermal Tax Parity Act, because it will create parity in the tax code for these two important renewable energy resources.

This bill would provide geothermal energy with the same 30 percent investment tax credit that is now available to solar energy and fuel cell technologies in Section 48 and extend this 30 percent tax credit for geothermal through December 31, 2016, as it is for these other technologies. Without this legislation, new geothermal energy projects would be allowed only a 10 percent investment tax credit under Section 48. This legislation will create a more level playing field among clean, renewable energy technologies and help stimulate investment in geothermal energy projects.

Geothermal energy can provide a continuous supply of renewable energy with very few environmental impacts. Although the United States has more geothermal capacity than any other country, this potential energy resource has not been widely developed. This is due in large part to the high initial cost and risk involved in locating and developing geothermal resources. Extending the 30 percent tax credit through 2016 will help geothermal developers obtain the financing they need to make investments in exploration and development.

This legislation is identical to a bipartisan companion bill, H.R. 2408, that our colleagues from the Pacific Northwest, Rep. David Reichert from Washington and Rep. Earl Blumenauer from Oregon have sponsored in the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Idaho, Sen. Mike Crapo, in introducing the Geothermal Tax Parity Act of 2011. This legislation will modify an existing investment tax credit for geothermal energy authorized under Section 48 of the Federal tax code. Although both solar energy and geothermal energy projects are eligible for an investment tax credit under Section 48, they are not equal. While I am a strong supporter of solar energy technology and support the solar energy tax credit, I am also a strong advocate for having a level playing field when it comes to government incentives. That is why this bill is called the Geothermal Tax Parity Act, because it will create parity in the tax code for these two important renewable energy resources.

This bill would provide geothermal energy with the same 30 percent investment tax credit that is now available to solar energy and fuel cell technologies in Section 48 and extend this 30 percent tax credit for geothermal through December 31, 2016, as it is for these other technologies. Without this legislation, new geothermal energy projects would be allowed only a 10 percent investment tax credit under Section 48. This legislation will create a more level playing field among clean, renewable energy technologies and help stimulate investment in geothermal energy projects.

Geothermal energy can provide a continuous supply of renewable energy with very few environmental impacts. Although the United States has more geothermal capacity than any other country, this potential energy resource has not been widely developed. This is due in large part to the high initial cost and risk involved in locating and developing geothermal resources. Extending the 30 percent tax credit through 2016 will help geothermal developers obtain the financing they need to make investments in exploration and development.

This legislation is identical to a bipartisan companion bill, H.R. 2408, that our colleagues from the Pacific Northwest, Rep. David Reichert from Washington and Rep. Earl Blumenauer from Oregon have sponsored in the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President and colleagues, I have been struck in the discussion about cut, cap, and balance that there has been virtually no mention--virtually no mention--of the No. 1 issue on the minds of the American people, and that is jobs. What we need above anything else is to create more good-paying jobs. In this discussion about cut, cap, and balance, the whole question of jobs has virtually not come up.

Now, what we know is that between the worst of this fiscal crisis and the end of 2010 we lost 8.5 million jobs, and our country has only recovered a small portion of those jobs. The fact is, many of those new jobs that have been created don't pay as much as the jobs that have been lost. We also know millions of our people can't find full-time work, and they have had to settle for part-time jobs to make ends meet. Cut, cap, and balance virtually ignores that question.

I hear, for example, from our business community that they have a very serious challenge in terms of generating sales. Sales are all about middle-class folks coming into our stores and, in a consumer- driven economy, making purchases. As we have seen a number of

times, David Leonhardt--particularly over the weekend in an excellent piece in the New York Times--described how in one area after another, in terms of consumer durable goods, middle-class folks have essentially walked off the economic playing field.

There is, however, one particular approach to job creation that has a proven track record--a proven track record--and bipartisan support, and it is one I hope the Congress will soon move to. I find that we have plenty of disagreement now in the Congress on a whole host of issues, but whether one is part of the Warner-Chambliss group or any other particular group, there is a sense that even though cut, cap, and balance doesn't talk about it, job creation is the most important issue. The path to that--the proven path to that, Madam President--is tax reform.

The fact is, that is the one unused tool in the economic toolshed. The Federal Reserve has thrown tremendous efforts at trying to boost the economy. The Recovery Act was a path. Various steps have been taken with respect to housing. Tax reform is the one area from the economic toolshed that has not yet been picked up and actually used. I think the country understands what needs to be done. Certainly, the Congress does. We had the report from the Bush Commission--George W. Bush--that made a number of excellent recommendations in their report. The Volcker Commission for President Obama had a number of sensible ideas.

I have had the pleasure of working with two very thoughtful colleagues on the other side of the aisle--Senator Gregg, before he retired, and now Senator Coats--and we have picked up on the model that populist Democrats and former President Ronald Reagan pursued in the early 1980s. It was all about cleaning out scores of special interest tax breaks and using that money to hold down rates for everybody and keep progressivity.

The reason I bring it up this afternoon--in the context of the fact that I sure don't see any mention of cut, cap, and balance focusing on jobs--is when Democrats and Ronald Reagan got together, the results on job creation were real, they were tangible, and we saw middle-class people get a chance to get back into the economy and get back to work.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the 2 years after Democrats and Ronald Reagan got together on a bipartisan basis to focus on job creation, our country created 6.3 million new jobs--6.3 million new jobs. Between 2001 and 2008, when tax policy was partisan, we only created about 3 million jobs. We have lost jobs in this last fiscal crisis, looking particularly at the measure that I cited at the end of 2010. So we have to get people back to work.

I see my friend from Iowa is here, and we have talked about tax reform on a number of occasions. Let me just cite an example of an approach on which Senator Coats, a Republican, and I have teamed up. We take away the tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas.

Right now, there are a huge array of tax breaks for, in effect, exporting jobs, when the country wants to export goods and services-- goods made in the United States, where we add value to them in the United States and then we ship them somewhere. What Senator Coats and I propose is taking away those tax breaks for exporting jobs and using those dollars for what I call red, white, and blue jobs--jobs that pay a good wage in the United States so we can get full-time employment for some of the folks so hard hit now who can't find more than 15 or 20 hours of work a week that doesn't pay a good wage so they can support their families.

Cut, cap, and balance doesn't raise those kinds of issues. It doesn't raise the fact that when we put people back to work, have good-paying jobs in this country, that generates revenue Democrats and Republicans alike can support.

I know Senator Harkin has focused particularly on this question of where the revenue is going to come from to pay for our safety net with so many people hurting and falling between the cracks; tax reform that puts middle-class people back to work as we saw when Democrats such as Dick Gephardt and former President Reagan got together that generates revenue both sides can support, private sector job growth that puts folks back to work and gets the middle-class consumer back into the economy and back into our stores.

Look, for example, at the bipartisan proposal Senator Coats and I have. The typical middle-class person can get $3,000, $4,000 worth of tax relief under our proposal, not by raising the deficit, not by spending more money, but by closing out some of these special interest loopholes. Where is that consumer going to go? They will have a chance in a consumer-driven economy to go back into the stores. Maybe they will buy a washing machine, maybe they will buy a computer for their kids. They will go back into the economy and help, as we have seen time and time again over our history, to get our country back on its feet by middle-class people who have good-paying jobs going back into the marketplace and helping our economy grow.

The numbers are striking. Again, after Democrats such as Dick Gephardt got together with Ronald Reagan, in the 3 years after those reforms in the middle 1980s, Federal tax receipts for individuals and corporations rose by $137 billion. That is the kind of revenue-raising approach that Democrats and Republicans alike can support. But we don't hear a word about job growth in the private sector under cut, cap, and balance.

We hear a lot of technical terms about whether Federal spending ought to be 19.9 percent of gross domestic product or should it be 20 or 21. Those are important issues, but to their credit, one economist after another has made it clear that we don't get to economic recovery in this country just by cutting. We are going to have to do some growing.

Colleagues, we are going to have to do some growing. And, to me, to be out on the floor talking about cut, cap, and balance and not paying any attention to a Tax Code that is a job killer rather than a job creator for what I call red, white, and blue jobs in this country just seems to be a mistaken set of priorities.

The reality is, as Senator Coats and I have made clear in offering our bill, the Tax Code is larded down with so many special interest goodies and sweetheart deals, and I just touched on one that we would actually be rewarding: the export of good American jobs. What we ought to be doing is taking away these foolish tax breaks and creating ones that get the middle class back into the economy and get our companies investing in our country.

Now, it does not take a constitutional amendment to do what Dick Gephardt, Ronald Reagan, Dan Rostenkowski, Bob Packwood, and a whole host of Democrats and Republicans got together to do in the 1980s. It requires Democrats and Republicans to work together to take on the special interests that currently benefit from the broken tax system.

Make no mistake about it. Those special interest groups are taking tax breaks that ought to instead go for real relief for hard-hit, middle-class families and American business to create jobs in this country.

I see colleagues on the floor. I want to wrap up with one last point, briefly. I would not say for a second that tax reform is the only component of economic recovery. Senator Blunt is here, and as chairman of the Trade Subcommittee on the Finance Committee, we have worked very closely together on another important trade issue. What we have seen-- and I know Senator Harkin is interested in this--is the Chinese have essentially been involved in merchandise laundering--some companies. What they have done after they have been found guilty of violating our trade laws, instead of changing their practices and complying with the trade laws, some of these Chinese outfits essentially go to another country and export through that country, and put on, for example, ``Made in Korea''--big implications with these trade agreements--and end up shipping those goods to the United States.

Senator Blunt and his constituents have made the correct point that is again taking away jobs from middle-class folks. But we have to get back to the issue of jobs on the floor of the Senate. That is the most important question for our constituents.

Staff told me on the way over here that in a recent survey of businesses

cites, again, their No. 1 concern is that sales are going down in their stores. I think everybody in the Senate knows you can often go to a store on a weekend or an evening and you hardly see anybody there because middle-class people are very worried about what is ahead and simply because of these economic times do not have the money to go in and buy those goods and arrange for those services that, in an economy that requires they be in the marketplace, they simply don't have the resources for it.

So I hope my colleagues will oppose cut, cap, and balance. I hope they will see the No. 1 issue in the country is jobs. Tax reform has a proven track record, colleagues--a proven track record: 6.3 million new jobs in the 2 years after Ronald Reagan, a conservative President, and Dick Gephardt, a populist Democrat, got together--a conservative Republican President, a populist Democrat. That is the tool we ought to take out of the economic toolshed and use as quickly as possible.

I hope we will move on certainly to tax reform in the fall, and I hope colleagues will remember that as we have this discussion about cut, cap, and balance. I think it misses the central question of our time, which is job creation. For that reason, I oppose the bill.

Madam President, colleagues are on the floor. With that, I would yield.

Mr. President, biomass energy development is not only a great economic opportunity for Oregon, it is an essential piece of the forest health puzzle. Biomass energy helps create a market and a way to pay for forest thinning and hazardous fuels programs. It is also a way for keeping local timber and wood products mills in business at a time when the industry, like many

in the U.S. is going through hard times. Biomass also provides an important renewable energy option for the Nation as a substitute for coal and other fossil fuels. Every region of the country has biomass energy opportunities even if the exact nature of the biomass that would be used varies from region to region. Today, I am joining my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, and a bipartisan group of Senators, in introducing legislation to make sure that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can, and will, issue regulations under the Clean Air Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act that ensure that the owners of these mills and biomass energy plants can continue to invest in them and maintain and create the jobs that are so badly needed.

Pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations governing boilers and incinerators will make it very difficult for biomass energy to be used in the U.S. To its credit, EPA recognizes this fact and has repeatedly proposed to rewrite those regulations to address the concerns of biomass energy users, the forest products industry, and other industries. The legislation being introduced today is aimed at making sure that EPA can collect the necessary data and reissue its regulations in an orderly process that preserves biomass energy as a national energy option and allows economically hard pressed timber and forest products mills to remain in operation.

On December 7, 2010, EPA, which was under court order to issue new Clean Air Act regulations for boilers and incinerators, filed a request with the Federal Court overseeing the boiler emissions rules asking for a delay in the court-ordered deadline for issuing the rules by 15 months so that EPA could reevaluate its own proposed rules and address the problems raised by the forest products industry and others. However, the Federal judge hearing the case rejected EPA's request and gave EPA just a month to fix the rule. In February 2011, EPA met that deadline, but continuing to recognize the flaws in its regulations, it immediately triggered an administrative process known as reconsideration to allow affected industries to provide more information and for the agency to revise its regulations. In May, EPA agreed with industry comments that the rule needed to be reviewed and it agreed to stay, or delay, the implementation of the existing Clean Air Act rules for boilers and incinerators. Unfortunately, EPA did not issue a stay of a related rule which defines which materials can be burned in those boilers and which need to be burned in incinerators. EPA has now proposed a schedule, which it confirmed in letters to me and several other Senators, to consider additional comments by industry and others and develop new Clean Air Act rules.

Unfortunately, this is not the end of the story. Stays can be lifted by the courts. This legislation would statutorily affirm the EPA's stay of the Clean Air Act rules. And it would affirm EPA's proposal to issue new regulations by a date certain. That date would be 15 months from the date of enactment, the same period of time EPA claimed was necessary to draft a new rule. The goal here, which I believe EPA shares, is to issue Clean Air Act regulations that make sense, not to do away with Clean Air Act regulations for boilers and incinerators.

On the other hand, by not agreeing to make changes to the ``what's a fuel and what's not'' rule, EPA has made it very likely that many widely used boiler fuels can no longer be used, like wood scrap from door and window mills. And some results of the rule make little practical sense. For example, scrap tires that are picked up at a tire shop can continue to be burned as a fuel. Scrap tires that are picked up at a landfill cannot. EPA has indicated that it will try to develop regulatory guidance to help industry navigate the regulatory confusion it has created.

I appreciate the fact that EPA recognizes that there is a problem with the fuel-or-waste rule and that they are offering to try to fix it by issuing regulatory guidance. However, I am not convinced that EPA can fix the problems with the rule by just by issuing guidance. This legislation will direct EPA to establish new rules on what materials can be burned as boiler fuel, and which cannot, and give EPA clear statutory direction on what can be included. This direction limits allowable fuels to a specific list so that there are no surprises or backdoor exceptions. EPA can add to the list only after notice and comment so the public knows what, if any, additions are being made.

This process for defining which fuels can be burned in a boiler and which cannot is very important to me. While it makes sense to continue to allow many materials that the wood products industry and others have used as boiler fuels for generations, I do not think that it's appropriate to simply decide that any fuel that was used in a boiler in the past should be grandfathered in. The provisions in this bill defining what materials can be burned in a boiler ensure that will not be the case. This was a major issue in litigation surrounding earlier versions of these rules and I do not think it is wise to ignore this fact. Congress has the opportunity to try to address the legitimate concerns about what is being burned in these boilers and it should.

Finally, the bill would extend the normal 3 year period for boilers to come into compliance to 5 years. It is my hope that once there a final regulations and industry knows what it has to do that it will not take that long. However, there some 2000 boilers in the U.S. that would all have to upgrade or replace their units all at the same time and coincident with similar rules going into effect for electric utility company boilers. This extra time will mean that there will be no excuse for not meeting the final standards.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.