and modify your positions and then you are president of all the people. some of your preferred positions you may not be able to focus on or you may have to downplay that to do the other things when you get to be president. every president i have ever known thought he would be a domestic president and everyone was an international disaster on their hands that changed -- from president bush i thought he would be able to make a lot more effort in mexico and central and south america. united states makes a mistake by not paying attention to our neighbors to the south. a huge population with a lot of common values we could take advantage of. i thought he thought he would do a lot more of that. and after 9/11 it was about terrorism and iraq and afghanistan. you can go back to jimmy carter. governor of georgia. he had no idea what would have

happened in iran. in your primary you define yourself and go forward and learn and have to give when you become president. i think you have to reach for a higher star and think about the greater legacy of your country. what i am saying to you is right now you are going to see candidates in both parties in positions that make make you uncomfortable. in the end you have to govern. that forces you to take positions that are different from what you thought they would be at the beginning. that is a long expos and i apologize but i thought it necessary based on the question. >> it is largely at this moment mitt romney versus ron perry. there are others. as has been the case on the democratic side from time to

time and is the case on the republican side when they have these primaries that if you think of them as sailboat's they put up a sale and sail far to the right this year to get -- navigate through the primaries because that is what they want to win. when the primaries are over they will go back to the center because this country has a strong center. in this case speaking for myself i think the sailboat on the right have gone to the edge of the map. to please some people they have to please in certain areas. they are going to come back towards the center because they don't want to scare the rest of the american people. they want to appeal to the part of their party that will determine who the candidate is but at the end they want to appeal to the broad range of the american voters. >> the republican party will nominate the most conservative

candidate they can get away with. the democratic party will go with the candidate as far left as they can get away with. the american people have a way of adjusting things. they feel like they overreact. i don't know if it is a visceral thing but subconsciously they will switch it back to try to keep more checks and balances in place. i really feel the best government is when the white house is one party and the congress is the other. when bill clinton was president you look at the legislative achievements of the 90s you will be shocked at the variety and number of pieces of legislation we passed when you have that divided government. welfare reform and save drinking water portability of insurance and tax cuts, balanced budget. we had a balanced budget and a

surplus. we rebuild our defense. >> some think the senate may go republican. if that is the case you would want obama to win a second term. we have ten minutes left. >> i am from the people's republic of china. my question is about bill 2899. chinese me the advantage in the united states which was introduced earlier this year. there are 650 chinese journalists working for the broadcasting board of governors. there are only two american journalists granted permission stationed in china. there's a disparity between the numbers. what do you think? >> either of you following this issue? >> no. i have written a book called take this job and shove it.

it is more about trade but deals with other in balances with respect to our relationship with china. china will have an influence on the future. the question is what will be influence be? our approach to china has been engagement through trade and travel believing that leads to greater human rights in china but there's a lot that concerns me about things in china and lack of human rights. we keep working at it. i am not familiar with the imbalance of journalism. >> turn over here. >> derek from northern university. one of the top -- hot tickets is the israeli-palestinian conflict. as far as national security what stance should we take and why? >> the united states has a critical and sensitive role to

play. it has been difficult for us to take a position that was accepted in the arab world as israel obviously. we are close in our relationship with israel. i think the solution as i said needs to be between the palestinians and the israelis. the administrations have tried to push that negotiation. it is a huge mistake for the united nations to insert itself in a situation. we should press to find a solution that would lead to peace and stability. when you think of israel -- dumped in that country today. that is a horrible way to live. we need to find a way to have

long term peace and security for all the players involved but especially for israel. >> next question. >> i am from the university of washington. i have a question for the gentleman over here. i was wondering about what bipartisan steps are taken in the pursuit of is really policy and piece? >> peace and bipartisanship for israelis and palestinians. >> i don't think there's great disagreement about our relationship to israel and determination and desire to have a negotiated settlement. i wish both sides would knock it off. stop the preconditions. get to the table and negotiate. our country should as aggressively as possible with that position. the only way you can get an agreement is to negotiate an

agreement. preconditions mean you never get there. it is a very important issue for the world. it is a powder keg and we need to see this. >> every president who tries to deal with that. president carter thought he pushed through the basis for an agreement and bill clinton worked on it and george bush -- very difficult but also important for peace in that part of the world. it is something we should be listening and learning. i don't represent this country but i will be meeting later with the retiring ambassador of morocco. one reason i want to meet with him is to get his perspective which is an interesting one on what is happening in that region of the world. he is muslim. he is leading as a diplomat and he has that unique perspective

on that region of the world. you find countries like morocco or jordan we should be careful to listen to their perspective and the israeli perspective. >> next question? >> i represent san diego state university. my question is in 2008 as one of the voting groups that got obama elected was college students and do you think he deserves their vote again? >> the enthusiasm that. what does this president need to do to gay these folks who supported him to do so next year? >> it is not just an enthusiasm that about politics for president obama. this country has lost the spring in its step and confidence. we have been through a difficult time. we are fighting two wars.

we have been averted deepest recession since the great depression. the day barack obama became president we lost 670,000 jobs alone that month. he was handed a very difficult economy. very difficult circumstance. i like barack obama. i think he has done as much as he can do to get bipartisan health and has he made the right decisions? no. i do think this country and the minority party owes him more than they have given him to try to help work through these problems. back to mitch mcconnell's statement, his highest objective is to see barack obama defeated. my highest objective is to put this country back on track and put people back to work and let

america experience the success of broad opportunity. there is plenty to be concerned about on both sides. barack obama will run for president for a second term. either rick perry or mitt romney will be the republican nominee. over the next six or eight months beginning next year we will have a robust discussion about who is best to take us there. i hope we are not discouraged about the guy who tries hard as new president having inherited the worst economy since the 1930s. i hope we won't be too discouraged about the fact the we haven't had instant progress. we are finally going to be on the road to better times. >> have we lost the spring in our step? >> the american people are worried about a variety of

things. when i go home and talk to the people particularly small business people and community bankers people are worried. they are worried about their economic situation and the future of our country. i know from past experience when we are challenged the most we will rise to the occasion. there are a lot of unique things about the people in this country with the mix that we have. we are unique and facing a challenge that is more difficult because the enemy is not so obvious. it is sinister economic enemy. with regard to young people in particular this will be an interesting campaign for the young people. i don't think they're locked up for barack obama again. one thing i noticed over the years is every four years the students are very different at

universities across the country. the generation that came along after watergate and vietnam became more liberal in their views. i never knew anything about drug culture when i was in school. right after that there was a problem. people had a different perspective than when i was in school and my son and daughter in school and their generation look the lot like my generation. there are ebbs and flowss in university students and will be different this time. most of you will wait and see who the republicans nominate or what he or she talks about or what they say will be different about the country. >> one thing that worries me

with the previous administration and this one is how much these presidents control their administrations. president bush at the end of his administration a didn't feel he was in control of what was being done in the transportation department and energy department and what they were doing. same thing now. the alphabet soup in this city, the department and bureaus are out of control. they have an agenda of their own. even the white house has things happen that shock them because career bureaucrats will be there when the next president comes. one of many reasons i hope we change presidents and get a president who will get this administration and this government under control and stop these out of control

runaway regulatory problems. >> how many cast their first ballot in 2008 in the presidential election? how many will be voting for the first time in 2012? how many will be voting? time for two more questions. over here and you will get the last question. >> university of brussels in belgium. how is it possible asocial plan known in europe that helps people has so much opposition in the united states from both parties the digital democrats and republicans? the point in the campaign where obama wants a social plan like health care. >> are you saying there are lessons from europe? >> why is it so difficult to have one in the united states? something that helps a lot of people and so much opposition here against it. >> let's take health care as one

specific to that because a lot of people point to what we see in canada and sweden and other european countries. what are the difference? why is something like that so different in our country compared to the makeup of europeans? >> because we are so different. americans are very individualistic and independent. we believe the best government is least government. the best government is closest to the people. not necessarily in washington. the most important elected official in this country is the local supervisor who represents part of one county. he is a commissioner in some states. i don't want us to be like europe. i don't want us to be a social welfare country. that is not who we have been and i hope we don't become that. i still have faith in the

individual but i have minimum faith in the government to decide where money should be spent. i like people to decide their own money. on educational lot of people want to spend more money at the federal level on education and school buildings. i still believe the bested occasion is local and state level. i get nervous when the federal government -- i voted for no child left behind. i was hesitant. i didn't like the national testing but i listened to the establishment and went along with it. it needs reforming very badly. it has created competition -- some good schools that don't meet bogus criteria get downgraded. i want education to be very important but i have a problem when local education is dictated in washington d.c..

>> senator dorgan? >> i voted for the health care bill. thirty-two million americans now have health insurance. i don't think your health care should be a function of something in your bank account. island to a debate of what should happen if someone who has no health care and has a condition that is near death, should the person get health care and people shouted death! we can't do everything for everybody but i would not decide to get rid of medicare. that is a social program that is very important. we need to address the financing issues but prior to medicare being enacted one half of the senior citizens didn't have any health care. any of you know health-insurance companies that chase a-year-olds to see if they will insure them? i guarantee they don't. they like the way you look. you look at young and healthy like you won't need health care for a long time.

they like to get your premiums because you won't show up at a doctor's office but old folks couldn't get health insurance that was affordable. half of them didn't have anybody so they lie in bed worried if the illness will strike and i don't have health care coverage. how will i deal with it? we put in place medicare. it is an important program. people are living longer and we need to make some adjustments. this issue of social programs and what we can do at the city or state or national level, we already made the decision about medicare. someone to take it apart. they don't like medicare or social security. the country will have an aggressive debate next year and it is a healthy debate. who are we and what do we aspire for ourselves and our future? >> one more question. you have been in this town dating back to richard nixon. i wonder if you can share with the students one moment, one experience with one president

you work with on a personal level. might have been a political outcome but give the students a sense of a president you work with. think about that question. >> i'm from university of central florida. i would like to ask if you think our military engagements affect our democratic process and in the post iraq and afghanistan war period will we see a sun setting or curtailment of civil liberties in bringing like the patriot act? >> senator dorgan? >> you can't go back and redo history. we needed to take the fight to the terrorists aggressively. had we known what we knew later we would not have attacked iraq because most of the intelligence turned out not to be accurate

but nonetheless we did. american soldiers. men and women were courageous and brave. when a country called they went. we went into afghanistan because that was where osama bin laden was. ten years later we're still in afghanistan. i make the point we need to withdraw from afghanistan. we will never control tribal regions of afghanistan. they have a largely corrupt government in afghanistan and is where terrorists were. we need to fight terrorist where they are. this country is spending $100 billion a year and afghanistan nation-building. you want to nation build, bills in this country. i feel strongly about that. you get involved in these things and can never withdraw because you have to explain why. we should not be in afghanistan. time to move out of afghanistan. >> i don't agree totally with what byron is saying but what i

say sounds like it. i do think we are trying to police too much of the world. we are afghanistan and we're still in germany and south korea. we are all over the world. i do think it is time we do some re-evaluation of what our international roles and responsibilities are. we need to pull back on our advanced capabilities. we should advance overseas where we need to. in the case of emergencies dealing with terrorists where they pop up but the american people think it is time to withdraw in a lot of places. not that we will become protectionist and withdraw from the world but just a re-evaluation. a modernization of what our role is. i remember getting into arguments with our european allies about going into

sarajevo. you know the situation. why do we have to take care of this? i remember talking to the president of germany which was an honorific sort of position. he said that is your role. that is what america is supposed to do. i didn't understand that. as a member of congress i always try to be supportive of the president. whether it is clinton or george bush or ronald reagan presidents make a lot of decisions. i remember getting into some arguments with president clinton about the rules required he wanted cooperation from the leadership and was going to bomb a couple places. i was very jumpy about that. i wanted proof of why we were bombing a particular factory. he provided it. i went along and supported. it turned out the intelligence may not have been all that good.

i am not being critical of him. i do think it is time we evaluate what our role is going to be in the future but at the same time we must make sure our military is what it needs to be and men and women in uniform wherever they are have the most modern technological capability to save lives and prevent loss of life. >> in your 30 plus years of elected office you dealt with a lot of presidents. one president, one moment. >> i was thinking of ronald reagan or the two george bushes. hard to pick a moment. i knew bill clinton when he was attorney general for the state of arkansas and later became governor. i knew him a long time. to show that politics is

personal, republicans and democrats care about each other. our friends -- i have lost a daughter. devastating time in my life and bill clinton called and talked to me for an hour-and-a-half one night. it was 10:30 at night from the white house. after that there was a flood in north dakota when an entire city was evacuated. bill clinton came with us. we landed in air force one at this air force base in empty bomber hinders. thousands were living in pots because their city was under water. i never forgot when bill clinton climbed the stage and these people who had been sleeping in the tankers on caught with their home inundated with water were

waiting to hear what this president would say. he got up in front of those people and said you are not alone. you are not alone. this country is with you. it is one of those moments i never forgot. i never forgot the impact on those people. >> i have a lot of fond memories including a similar thing with president nixon after hurricane camille in my home area. seeing air force one pulling up at night. i have a lot of interesting experiences with bill clinton. most memorable are the ones when he would call at 2:00 in the morning and when i would hang up my wife would say what did he want? i would say i don't know. but it was an interesting conversation. the most memorable one was in

1986. i was the republican whip in the house supposedly in charge of counting votes or rounded up the votes. i resisted the tax reform bill reagan was pushing in the form it was an and it pretty much said not only am i not going to do the whip work but i will vote against it. i was sitting on the right side of his desk on his left. jim baker is on the other side, is chief of staff is pressing me to support this bill. i don't think that is what i am here to do. that is a lot of tax increases. that is not what you are here to do and i can't support it. so we talked a while and finally he said if i can't count on the whip who can i count on? i leaned back in the chair thinking i'm the son of a shipyard worker from mississippi

and i'm telling the world's greatest leader i admire so much i can't help you. i said ok, i will do it. and i did. we passed it and i consider it one of the two worst votes account in my 25 years. but it was memorable when the president is looking at you and you start sweating saying if i can't count on you, who can i count on? when the president of the united states put it to you like that you have to help. >> 350 students make of the washington center from around the country and around world in washington d.c.. on behalf of a bipartisan policy center, senator dorgan and senator lott, thank you for being here. [applause]

>> thank you. we need to move relatively quickly, of the auditorium. >> the c-span network provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history. this month look for congress to consider federal spending in november including funding for recent natural disasters. keep tabs on the plan to lower the debt and follow the presidential candidates as they campaign across the country. it is all available on television, radio, online and on social media sites. watch our programs any time with c-span video library and we are on the road with c-span digital content vehicles bringing resources to local communities

and showing events around the country. it is washington your way. the c-span network created by cable and provided as a public service. >> we go live to the u.s. capitol as the senate convened. on the floor we expect senate to continue with a bill that helps american workers hurt by foreign trade. the amendment vote early this afternoon. legislation is part of an agreement to vote on trade deals with columbia, panama and south korea. in the house today's agenda includes temporary spending bill for the new fiscal year which starts oct. first. the senate is waiting for house approval before it takes up the measure which supplies money for the federal government until nov. eighteenth. majority leader harry reid said he will change the bill to include $6.9 billion in emergency disaster assistance funding. live senate coverage on c-span2. with thanksgiving and praise.

we're thankful that your mercy is everlasting and that your truth endures to all generations. we praise you that we are your people and the sheep of your pasture. today, enable the members of this body to experience your presence and to receive your wisdom. may they receive these blessings aware of your counsel that "to whom much is given, much is required." bless us and all the people of the world, this day and every day.

we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., september 21, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, following the morning business, following morning business the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 2832, the g.s.p. bill and the vehicle for trade adjustment assistance. at approximately 12:30 p.m. there will be two roll call votes in relation to the hatch amendment regarding the effective date of trade adjustment assistance and the mccain amendment regarding a two-year extension of that program. additional roll call votes are expected during today's session. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour, the time equally divided and senators permitted to speak therein up to 10 minutes each.

mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority will control the first half, the republicans the second half. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: this morning we learned that the republican leaders of the house of representatives and the united states senate have done something which may be unprecedented. we are searching for some example in the past when this has occurred, but we've learned today that the republican leaders of both the house and the senate have sent a letter to federal reserve chairman ben bernanke ahead of the -- ahead of the central bank's two-day meeting that begins today. that letter to chairman bernanke from the republican congressional leaders instructs them as to what they should try to achieve during their two-day meeting. a former commissioner of the federal reserve said this is outrageous. that an independent agency like the federal reserve which has operated with independence of political impact and political

pressure over the years would now be receiving direct political communications from the republican leaders. what is the message of the republican leaders to the federal reserve? the message is, don't lower interest rates. now, i don't know if senator mcconnell, senator kyl, congressman -- speaker bainer or congressman cantor have been home lately but if they've been home and met with local businesses, small businesses, they will learn very quickly that it is very difficult for them to borrow money to sustain and expand their businesses and hire more people. as we have a monetary policy which allows expansion of these businesses an expansion of jobs across america, we have an opportunity to try to put this recession behind us. what is the message of the republican leaders to the federal reserve board? the message is clear and simple: do nothing. stand by the sidelines and watch this economy languish. it's the same message the republican leaders are sending to the president of the united

states. he came to us almost two weeks ago and said we've got to move together to make this economy stronger. we've got to find a way working together to create jobs. the president said let's give to work force -- working families a tax cut, a payroll tax cut. the average family will receive about $1,500 a year in my state of illinois. this will help those families struggling from paycheck to paycheck. the republican response to them: no. they have said to the president they will not accept a payroll tax cut for the working families and middle-income families across america. the president said let's give to businesses across america some help. let's reduce the payroll tax, in fact, let's create a tax incentive for these businesses to hire unemployed workers. we know that there are plenty of people out there who need work and some businesses with an enticement through the tax code may be able to finally hire that

extra worker and reduce the unemployment rolls. the republican enter again is no. time and again when either the federal reserve board or the president or in fact any economist suggests that we need to move forward as a nation to deal with the recession, the answer from the republican side of the aisle is no. now with this letter to the federal reserve, the republican congressional leaders are telling the federal reserve we believe for the first time in history that they should not provide in this economy a vehicle for expansion by lowering interest rates. that to me is wrong-headed. when i think of the businesses looking to borrow money, when i think of those homeowners who need to refinance their homes, interest rates are critically important for the substantial of this economy. time and again, the republican approach to this economy has been simply stated in just a few words: do nothing and protect the millionaires. when the president steps up and says asking the wealthiest among us to pay something more in terms of their own taxes is only

fair, the republicans cry foul, class warfare, all of the things that they've used to defend their position, defending millionaires across america. most people across america understand that we are going to have to have shared sacrifice to emerge from this recession. and a lot of families are making that sacrifice today. working families, middle-income families have been falling behind for a long, long time. we want to help them with the payroll tax cut and by creating some life in this economy that creates new jobs. and unfortunately, we have no help coming from the republican side of the aisle. the president believes as we do that putting workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing america is the best way to see us through this recession. he believes that there are pathways back to work for americans looking for jobs. he wants to restructure the unemployment compensation program, use something innovative techniques that have been popular in the past with republicans but now are being rejected because the president offers them.

an idea that has been suggested of allowing some unemployed workers to come back to work and still draw unemployment so that they can have valuable work experience and perhaps find a long-term permanent position to work with. tax relief for workers and families across america, cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers is going to be a break that they need. many of these workers and working families are struggling with high gasoline prices. does $125 a month mean that much to a senator or congressman? maybe not but if you're living paycheck to paycheck and saw gasoline go over $4 a gallon, $125 is essential so you can make it back and forth to work and do the things necessary for your family. the president's payroll tax cut will help these working families and the republicans oppose it. this plan also has deficit reduction. the president understands as we all do that the deficit america now faces and our long-term debt

need to be faced squarely. he believes and i share the belief we should spend the next year building the economy but make it clear that over the long term we are going to take the actions necessary to reduce our deficit substantially over a ten-year period of time by more than $4 trillion. that's what the president announced when he made his statement on monday. he also realizes that while cutting the deficit and reducing america's debt, we have to keep our promise, the promise to americans who receive social security. madam president, 26% of social security recipients have no other source of income. if you talk about cutting those benefits or privatizing social security as many republicans do, you are putting at risk literally the life blood of 26% of social security recipients. for 70% of social security recipients, social security represents more than half of their income. so they listen carefully as the president says we're going to protect the basic benefits under

social security. same thing holds true for medicare. medicare is a program that has been dramatically successful. don't take my word for it, don't take any politician's word for it. look at the life expectancy of senior citizens since we passed it in the 1960's. seniors can live longer because of medicare. we know we have to make changes in the program but let's do it in the spirit preserving the basic benefit structure of medicare. that's essential and the president has made that clear, too. those on the republican side who support the congressman paul ryan budget by would hand out vouchers seniors and say good luck in the insurance marketplace ignore the reality that as people age they sometimes face medical challenges that others don't have and they need the benefit and protection of medicare in years to come. the president is committed to that, the democrats are committed to that, it should be a bipartisan commitment. the same thing is true when it comes to medicaid. this is a program across america

that is essential in new york and in illinois. 36% of all the children in the state of illinois rely on medicaid for health insurance. more than half of the babies born in my state are paid for by the medicaid program and 20% of medicaid recipients in illinois consume 60% of the money spent. most of them are elderly people who are very poor, living on medicare, relying on medicaid to stay in a convalescent setting or nursing home setting. so medicaid has to be protected as well. and that's a challenge the president and those of us on the democratic side accept. the bottom line is this: we can move this economy forward in a coordinated, bipartisan effort. use the president's payroll tax cuts, the business tax cuts that are fully paid for, make certain that we are dedicated to rebuilding america, its basic are infrastructure and make sure we take care of our own, the veterans returning from war, 10% of whom are out of work

today. that's an embarrassment. and it's one that should come to an end immediately. we should work on a bipartisan basis to encourage their being hired. madam president, there's another thing that worries me this week as we face a week of recess for both the house and senate. the republican leader, congressman eric cantor of virginia has suggested we may be facing another government shutdown threat. that's just incredible. that the republican leader would bring that up as one of the options as we go into this week before recess. we don't need this. we have faced two previous threats this year from the tea party dominated republican house of representatives. they threatened to close down the government when we passed the continuing resolution, they threatened again to close down the economy we we faced the debt ceiling. at this perilous moment in american economic history we shouldn't face a government shutdown again and the republican leaders of the house should not be suggesting that as

an alternative. we need to work together. the bottom line issue is disaster aid. i think the senator from new york knows as i do in illinois we have faced these natural disasters, 48 states have this year. unpredictable, hurricane irene, i know did a tremendous damage in the state of new york, earlier this year in the spring the flooding on the mississippi and ohio rivers did tremendous damage in my state of illinois. we can't predict when these natural disasters will come and we certainly can't predict how much they will cost. and now the republicans in the house are insisting that we have to pay for every dollar of disaster aid. what are their pay-fors? take a look at it. it's a program that we created to encourage the creation of manufacturing jobs in the united states making fuel-efficient vehicles. the republicans say eliminate it. eliminate a program focused on putting americans back to work in good-paying jobs, building

the vehicles of the future so that we can be competitive not only at home but overseas? the republicans say that's something government should not do. it's a consistent pattern. whether it's their message to the federal reserve to do nothing when it comes to lowering interest rates, when it's their message to the president to do nothing when it comes to payroll taxes to help middle-income families and business tax credits to put people back to work or when it comes to paying for gaffers dafers when they suggest eliminating a program that will create manufacturing jobs in the united states. time and again the philosophy of the republicans comes through. stand by, do nothing. we saw itas well when this cameg sure that general motors and chrysler survived the crisis. the republican position was, do nothing. there are many employees whose jobs are at stake when we talk about the automobile industry all across america. we often think of some of the big names now that we see every

day in the news. there are about 3,000 employees of an operation known as facebook. there are about 30,000 employees of a company known as google. there are 200,000 direct employees of general motors, not to mention the millions who are suppliers and vendors of their products. that's an indication to me of the shortsightedness of the republican approach. ignoring the relative an automobile industry that needed a helping hand meant that if the republicans had their way, g.m. and chrysler may not exist today. thank goodness they didn't have their way. the president stepped in, made the changes necessary, encouraged the management of these companies to restructure in light of the new economic realities and the companies survived. in my home state of illinois, in belvedere, we're frowd have a chrysler facility. i talked to the c.e.o. of chrysler. he believed and i certainly concur that this facility has a bright future because the government helped chrysler

through an economic crisis. that is the kind of forward-looking view of the economy which we need. when the republicans instruct the federal reserve board to do nothing to help the economy, say to the president, do nothing to help the economy, and then threaten a government shutdown over paying for disaster relief across america, that to me is shortsighted. it is not consistent with the economic growth we need in this country to make certain we're moving forward. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam

president. earlier this week i met with leaders in the ohio jewish community about what could happen as the united nations assembles in new york. a dear friend of israel told me that these are tough times for israel, some of the toughest ever. she took a deep breath, gathered her thoughts and said, "until your neighbors sip, it will rawls be a tough time." israel is accustomed to living in a tough neighborhood but in recent months that neighborhood has grown even tougher. confrontation with israel is a new centerpiece of regrettably turkish foreign policy, leaders in egypt question egypt's commitment to its peace treaty with israel, hez heses has consolidated its political hold in the lebanon government, and iran, it's probably the largest threat to peace in the middle east, continent's consistently. but iran continues its unmistakable march to nuclear

capability. in the coming days, the next step in an escalation to israel should take place should the palestinians seek recognition as a state from the united nations. instead of negotiating directly with israel as the palestinians have often committed to do, as far back as the oslo agreement, they are about to exclude israel from any role in deciding issues critical to peace. that must not occur. this action could set back the peace process for the decades to come. the obama administration is assiduously attempting to stop this dangerous move. today congress must stand firm which is rail, must oppose any palestinian action at the u.n. which would circuit vent its commitments to -- circumvent its commitments to peace. we must speak with one voice -- house, senate, republican, democrat, congress, administration. the administration said it will veto a security council

resolution that would recognize a palestinian state, and it must do that. the u.n. rules for admission require that any applicant before the u.n. be -- quote -- "peace-loving" -- unquote -- and -- quote -- "willing and able to carry out the obligations of the united nations charter." unquote. the u.n. charter calls for faith in the fundamental human rights with dignity and worth of the human person. it calls on members to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors. the p.a. is not yet. u.n. membership, statehood statehood itself? the a gift. it is national right. tts earned. there is a responsible path for the palestinians. direct negotiations with israel are the only way to achieve a lasting peace. just as direct negotiations produce peace between israel and jordan. binyamin netanyahu has called for direct talks to begin immediately, as has president obama, as have so many of our

colleagues. why should the palestinians be rewarded by the u.n. for refusing to negotiate with israel? the palestinians have elected to pursue confrontation over negotiation with israel. we must rethink our effort. today the subcommittee of which i am a member will be marking up the international affairs appropriations bill. the same day the p.a. is considering making its plea at the united nations the bill is strong in holding the p.a. accountable should it attempt such a misguided maneuver. we can't reward unilateral acts. we can't reward bad behavior born of a clear rejection of the only proven path to passments many of my colleagues and i understand that a great number of palestinians want what we all want in this country in new york, in ohio, and across our country, and what people want in israel: a better life for their children, a life of peace and prosperity between and among peoples. i'm confident the administration

will veto any security council recognition of a palestinian state, absolutely confident. but there are other options and possibilities before the u.n., like seeking recognition from the general assembly, as a, quote, unquote, "nonmember state." it doesn't solve the palestinian problems of avoiding the tough negotiations and the internal consensus-building that are essential for peacemaking to succeed. this is why u.s. leadership is so important at this critical time. that's why we must all speak with one voice and stand firm in an unbreakable bond with israel. until we hold those who seek to destroy israel accountable, it will always be a tough time for our closest ally. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask further proceedings on the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: there has been a lot of debate this the last

week about the latest proposals coming out of the white house at whether the president's latest stimulus bill or the tax hikes he's proposing will help or hurt the economy. based on what we're hearing are the white house this week it's hard to see the point in having any debate at all. i'm referring, of course, by a comment by the white house communications director who told "the new york times" on monday that president had had entered what he referred to as a new phase. a new phase. the president may have worked with republicans to avert a government shutdown last spring and to raise the debt ceiling this summer, but that, quote, "that phase is behind us." end quote. in other words, the white house isn't entered in actually accomplishing anything anymore. it's more interested in making a point than making a difference. so here's my question: how do you explain to the 14 million americans looking for a job right now that you're more

interested in motivating campaign supporters than in motivating businesses to hire? for the past week, the president has been running around the country trying to set a record for the number of times he can say "pass this bill right away" in a five-minute stump speech. meanwhile, his communications director is telling people the president doesn't really expect the bill to pass. and the democratic majority leader of the senate is treating it like a legislative afterthought. my friend the majority leader said yesterday he might take up this of supposedly urgent bill next month after he's had a chance to deal with the chinese currency bill and a few others. as for the other democrats in congress, well, they're not exactly rushing to get it in the queue either. this so-called jobs bill seems to be about as popular as solyndra and i'm just talking about among democrats. yet the president's out there

acting like somebody's actually putting up a fight. so this whole thing is a charade. and i think the american people deserve better. i think they deserve a president who realizes that governing involves working with the situation as it is, not as you would like it to be. president obama may think the best way to distract people from the challenges we face to is to stand near a bridge in a swing state and pit one group of americans against another and hope his critics look bad if they don't get along with him but i don't think he's fooling anybody. i don't think all the campaign stops in the world are going to convince most americans that the real cause of our problems lies anywhere other than with the policies that are coming out of washington these days. or that the single grated obstacle to job creation in america today are policies that punish the risk tokyoers and -- risk takers and the entrepreneurs that stifle investment and private enterprise rather than rewarding it. when it comes right down to it,

i think most americans care more about results than rhetoric. and let's be honest, the results of this president's economic policies speak for themselves. after 2 1/2 years of government spending, here's what we've got: record deficits, chronic unemployment, median incomes going down, poverty rates going up, and the first-ever credit downgrade. this isn't exactly a record to be proud of. so i can understand the president wanting to change the topic. might make him feel better, it might energize his strongest supporters, but here's something it won't do: it won't create jobs. look, if we could solve our jobs crisis and revive the economy by passing the hat at warren buffett's annual shareholders' meeting, we'd have done it by now but we

can't. why? because that's not a real solution. it's a campaign slogan. the president said the other day that tax hikes he's proposing aren't class warfare, he said they're math. well, we can do math, too. so let's do the math. according to the i.r.s., if you doubled, doubled the tax burden on everybody in america who earned more than a million dollars in 2009, you'd cover the cost of about three months of deficit spending around here. if you doubled the tax burden on everybody in america who earned more than a million dollars, back in 2009, you'd cover the cost of about three months of the deficit. we're running around here. if you confiscated every dime of taxable income from those the president refers to as millionaires and billionaires, take it all, you wouldn't even

cover a single year of deficit spending in washington right now. spending more money in washington won't solve our spending problem. it will enable it. how about the stimulus? one of the programs in the stimulus was supposed to create 65,000 jobs. so far it's created 3,500 at nearly $11 million per job. $11 million per job. solyndra was supposed to create thousands of permanent jobs. two years later, more than 1,000 solyndra employees are out of work altogether. and the american taxpayer is on the hook for more than a half a billion dollars in loans to the company. but here is the most important calculation, not a single new job will come about as a result

of the tax hikes the president proposed this week. not one new job. as the national federation of independent business puts it, new tax increases on america's biggest job creators are the last thing the economy needs to get back on track. what else do we need to know? republicans are ready to work with the president on turning this economy around. we know what would work, and after the past 2 1/2 years we've certainly seen what won't work. so my suggestion to the president is the same now as it's been for months. put aside the political playbook, work with us on policies that will actually solve the problems americans care about the most. let's work together on policies that are aimed at motivating job creators, not your political base. it's time to change course. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mccain: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call i would note. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings on the quorum call be suspended and that i be -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mccain: allowed to address the senate as in morning business.

the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. mccain: i rise today to discuss a fundamental problem of this body, the fact that congress as an institution and the senate in particularly -- in particular rarely engages in the process of authorizing prior to appropriating money for our government. as a result, a handful of senior appropriators and their unelected staffs dictate the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars, often in a manner that directly contravenes the will of those committees that still authorize spending. it's time this process be stopped. the solution is simple. we should not authorize on appropriations bills and any funding proposed for unauthorized projects should be subject to the scrutiny and approval of the authorizing committees and reflect the will of their members. we're all to blame for this problem. the fact is that routine passage

of authorizing legislation simply doesn't occur as it should. and far too often even routine passage of appropriations legislation has devolved into passage of a single omnibus bill. this also must stop. a case in point is the appropriations bill to fund the department of defense that was reported out of the appropriations committee just last week. that legislation should reflect the will of the defense authorization bill but runs directly contrary to it in many areas. at a time when we face a $14.7 trillion national debt that is mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren, the senate appropriations committee is proposing a defense spending bill that uses a budget gimmick totaling over $10 billion to mislead the american people about the savings the committee claims to achieve. and while the department of defense is struggling to find

more than $400 billion in cuts directed by the president, the appropriations committee is still conducting business as usual by rewarding special interests and funding pet projects that have little or nothing to do with our national defense. in the bill reported out last week that purports to cut over $26 billion from the president's request by changes to 580 different programs, somehow the appropriations committee still found money for over $2.3 billion in additional spending not requested by the department of defense and for items that are far from real defense requirements. i have here a list of the roughly 580 items that were changed by the appropriations committee which are differences from the bill adopted unanimously by the senate armed services committee in june in the department of defense

authorization bill. this list is 45 pages long and represents $20 billion in changes. for example, it's incredible to me that the appropriations committee put a priority on spending $33 million in operation and maintenance funds. that money is used to maintain the readiness and combat capability of our troops. well, the $33 million is going to purchase school buses, to build a mental health substance facility on guam, and a repository for cultural artifacts. i am not making that up. $33 million, $33 million, for a repository -- oh, phase one of a repository for cultural artifacts, funding for a mental health substance abuse facility

and the purchase of school buses. all of this money and $40 million more next year to complete these facilities at least in theory supposedly to help guam's cooperation as part of the plan to move 8,700 marines and 9,000 family members from their current bases on oak now you what to guam. i know the marines will enjoy being on guam. i'm not sure it's absolutely necessary for them to have a repository for cultural artifacts. but the plan to move the marines, which will require spending between $18 billion and $23 billion on guam to build up its capabilities as a permanent base, is so much in doubt that both the armed services committee and the military construction and veterans affairs subcommittee of the appropriations committee has stopped funding guam military construction projects until the department of defense provides a

master plan and considers alternatives that may provide the needed marine forward presence at much less expense. in fact, we simply cannot afford to carry out the plans as they were originally envisioned. in the face of all the doubt about the scope and timing of the eventual buildup, the appropriations committee put a premium on buying school buses, an art fact repository and a mental health clinic in guam. that's not anybody's idea of defense priorities in the fiscal environment that we face. in some cases, the appropriations committee was well aware that the armed services committee had on a unanimous vote reported out a bill that denied funding for a program, but the appropriators funded the full amount anyway. this is the case with the army's medium-extended air defense system -- or meads.

the committee cut the entire request of $406 million for this program because army leaders have told the senate that they do not intend to ever buy or deploy the system and because repeated technical reviews have determined that meads is behind school, over cost and a high risk of technical failure. the technical committee ignored the decision and instead appropriated the full amount of $406 million. even in the face of the fact of a need to cut defense sphend deg by eliminating programs that are not effectively providing for the troops. hundreds of millions of dollars in the fiscal year 2012 defense appropriations bill have been allocated to things that were never requested by the pentagon, never authorized by the senate armed services committee, and

which are simply not core defense priorities. example: there's $354 million add for medical research, not requested by the pentagon, including $120 million for breast cancer research, $10 million for ovarian cancer research, $64 million for prostate cancer research, and $50 million for other medical research for a laundry list of medical conditions. i am not questioning the merits of medical research, but they do not have anything to do with defending this nation. they should be taken out of the appropriations of the health and human services subcommittee, not out of defense. again, i am not questioning the merits of medical research and the important role that the federal government can play. i'm saying it's time to stop being taken out of national

defense. it adds even more unrequested funding for programs like $60 million for environmental conservation for ranges, $106 million for alter national energy reresearch -- research, whatever that means, $45 million for high-performance computing modernization. all of these and a long list of them may be good programs. they are not authorized. they're not authorized, and the job of the senate armed services committee is to scrutinize these programs and select those that are in most need of funding. $5 million for the national guard youth challenge program, $50 million -- $4.5 million for the civil air patrol. programs have some merit, but we've got to look at these with an eye to the fact that we have been tasked to cut $400 billion

that the president has already ordered the pentagon to undertake. despite the appropriations committee's desire to find $26 billion in defense savings, they found money to add $240 million in unrequested funding -- the pentagon and the president did not ask for them -- funding for a number of congressional special interest areas such as advanced materials research, $10 million; industrial-based innovation fund, whatever that is, $30 million; defense rapid innovation fund, $200 million. and the procurement account, the appropriations committee added $675 million for items that were not requested by the pentagon or authorized by the armed service is committee, including $120 million for advanced procurement of 12 air force c-130-j's, money for improved radars for air

national guard f-15*s, $140 million for program increases to classified programs -- the list goes on and on p. although the appropriators were looking for $26 billion in savings, they chose not to follow the armed services committee in making cuts to some programs, even when the justification for taking savings was clear. these examples include $150 million for army-guided missile launch rocket system, $495 million for navy faa hornets which was pointed out were funded in the full year defense appropriations bill for the dwreer 2011. $205 million for the fleet satellite communications follo follow-on program for which the armed services committee noted that the funding for the requested booster was early, was too early. in order to gift appearance of

real savings to the taxpayer, the appropriations committee, again, incredibly shifted over $10 billion in funding from the nonwar-based defense budget to the off-budget emergency spending. for the benefit of the record, the overseas contingency operations fund does not count as part of the budget. but it is for overseas contingencies; ie, the wars in iraq and afghanistan. so what did the appropriations committee do? they took money that is supposed to be for the conflicts in iraq and afghanistan and within -- and they transferred over $3.2 billion to the account for overseas contin yency operations. $550 million for a predator drone, $280 million for counterfire radar, $192 million

for a fire scout unmanned ariel system, $784 million for unmanned ariel as many as. in operations and maintenance accounts, the committee transferred over $6.2 billion for items that were requested in the base budget to the off-budget for overseas contingency operations funding including $3 billion for army depot maintenance, $4 the 5 million for navy maintenance. it goes on and on. the personnel accounts another $529 million was transferred from the defense budget where it was requested. the overseas contingency operations budget so it would count as defense savings. this is pure budget gimmickry. it's about time we got serious about cutting spending and using budget gimmicks to shift over

$10 billion from the base defense budget to the emergency account that we have set aside for support of overseas contingency operations is not saving the taxpayers a dime. cutting $10 billion from the president's request for the wars in pishing anin iraq and afghan, shifting war expenses, and then claiming in a press release -- they had the gall in a press release that the president's request for the war fighting accounts are fully supported -- is not only a gimmick; it is dishonest with the american people. it is a disservice to the men and women of the military, who depend on nawndzing for critical war-fighting equipment and support. i have talked to many of our senior commanders in iraq, members of the iraqi government during repeated trips to iraq in year. all of them have recommended that the united states maintain at least 10,000 soldiers beyond december 31, 2011.

now, there's no money in the war-fighting accounts, for if we have additional troops. so because of the administration's delay in any decision for any additional troops, understandably that is not funded in these bills, which are required obviously by 1 october the end of the fiscal year. we will -- what will also put our troops, our national security and nation at graving risk is more drastic defense cuts should the recommendations fail to gather enough congressional support. secretary of defense panetta warned last week that the failure of lawmakers to agree on debt ceiling talks, which would trigger up to $600 billion in additional pentagon budget cuts, would add one percentage point to the nation's jobless rate. he also called the impacts of cuts of that magic any tiewd

deaf -- magnitude devastating to our armed forces. the citizens of my state and nearly every other state have been struggling through record unemployment rates and unprecedented fiscal pressures. now more than ever they need strong leadership to make sufficient decisions, to restore fiscal discipline and responsibility in federal spending. i am committed to using every power available to me to ensure that the defense bills for 2012 provide spending for only the most critical national security requirements, as proposed by the department and defense leadership. in this regard, the defense aproationzppropriations bill -- the defense appropriations bill is sadly lacking. there's plenty of blame to go around. i don't fault just the appropriators. we have all failed to do our job. the answer to this problem is to fix it. we must stop authorizing un-- on

appropriations legislation without the agreement of the authorizing committee. the appropriations bills should reflect the will of the authorizing committees. i intend to work with my colleagues to remedy this problem so that the will and wisdom of all senators, not just a select few, is represented when we pass appropriations legislation. a solution to this problem is long overdue, and i intend to fight to see that it's solved. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

z. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i have an amendment at the desk numbered

625 -- the speaker pro tempore: will the senator suspend while we report the business. the clerk: calendar 166, an act to extend the generalized system of preferences and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. mccain: i have an amendment at the desk numbered 625, i ask unanimous consent it be made the pending business. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. mccain, proposes amendment numbered 625. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent further proceeding of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, the amendment would authorize the continuation of trade adjustment assistance or t.a.a. for two additional years at the level of funding that the program maintained prior to the

2009 stimulus package addition. prior to the stimulus passed by this body in 2009, the t.a.a. program cost taxpayers about $1 billion per year. with passage of the stimulus package which was advertised to be a temporary injection into the economy, a temporary injection, the stimulus was increased and expanded to the program to cost about -- of about $2 billion in 2010 and according to the department of labor estimates, $2.4 billion in 2011 if the stimulus expansions were allowed to remain in place. i would remind my colleagues with the stimulus package these were one-time deal and once the money was spent, then those programs lapse. apparently not so with the

t.a.a. program. we don't yet have a cost score for the reid substitute before us, but estimates indicate that the t.a.a. agreement may lock in at least 65% of the 2009 stimulus expansions for the next several years. that is approximately in my calculation at least $600 million additional cost per year to the taxpayers for maintaining 65% of the stimulus level of t.a.a. architects of the agreement will say these provisions sunset at the end of 2014, but we all know that sunsets can be fiction. so we're really talking about 2012, 2013, and 2014, that's

about -- roughly a minimum of $1.2 billion of additional spending on the dubious, at least in my mind, dubious benefits of the t.a.a. program. my friends on the other side of the aisle have long insisted that the price of passing trade agreements in congress is passing t.a.a. and other programs like it. domestic spending legislation geared to assist u.s. workers who have been adversely affected by foreign trade. for this reason, in 2002 congress passed the t.a.a. legislation that provided short-term temporary support for worker retraining and other assistance. many republicans, including myself, were skeptical about whether this program and others like it achieve their goals, but we went along for the sake of our national interest in expanding free trade. in 2009, without any action taken on our three pending trade

agreements, the stimulus package dramatically increased the t.a.a. program as part of the stimulus bill, and increased spending on this program annually by approximately $1 billion. in essence, a program that was designed to assist workers that had been adversely affected by free trade was transformed into a domestic spending program for reasons that had nothing at all to do with expanding free trade. what's worse, after repeatedly claiming it supports the trade agreements with colombia, panama and korea, the white house earlier this year announced that the cost of its support was reauthorization of the new t.a.a. with funding set not at the original 2002 level but the 2009 stimulus level. so here you had a program that had been expanded from its

original cost under the dubious guys -- dubious guise of a are temporary stimulus, and then we were told this increase which was to expired along with the stimulus would in effect be turned into a permanent domestic spending program. after much debate there appears to be a proposal to reauthorize t.a.a. and fund it somewhere between the pre-stimulus and poststimulus level. this is contained in the substitute amendment offered by the majority leader. some would say this is a good deal, and republicans should accept it. others say the trade adjustment assistance is ineffective and unproven and congress should kill it altogether. i am very dubious about the benefits of t.a.a., but i understand also what's doable around here and what's not. so i'm offering this amendment as a matter of principles.

as i've said on the floor many times on the floor of this body i'm not opposed to t.a.a. nor to i seek to kill it. i read the same media reports of my colleagues which suggests that the white house is holding hostage the trade agreements with south korea, colombia, and panama until congress passes t.a.a. many of us don't like this. many of us think this is contrary to our national economic interest but it's a fact. so i recognize as in the past that congress should reauthorize t.a.a. the question is how much of the taxpayers' money should we spend to do it? that's why i'm offering this amendment. i believe that congress should reauthorize it because we're being compelled to do so, but i also believe that we should reauthorize this program at its prestimulus funding levels. let me explain why. the following are the temporary expansions to t.a.a. that were included in the stimulus which cost about $2 billion in 2010

and according to the department of labor, was estimated to cost approximately $2.4 billion in 2011 if the 2009 stimulus expansions had stayed in place. the stimulus expanded t.a.a. to cover workers whose employers shifted production to any foreign country, not just those as under prior law whose jobs were outsourced to countries with which the u.s. has free trade agreements. it expanded coverage to the service sector and government employees who lose their job because of trade. it increased the tax credit available to cover private health insurance, premiums from 65% to 80%. it increased the appropriations cap for training from $220 million to $575 million. 160% increase over the previous cap. it created the t.a.a. for

communities program, which authorizes $230 million for trade-affected communities to assist in strategic planning grants up to $5 million, sector partnership grants, up to $3 million over a three-year period, and community college and career training grants up to $1 million. it gave $17.5 million to states for employment and case management. it lengthened the amount of time workers could receive the trade -- readjustment allowance assistance by 26 weeks. and finally, it revived the t.a.a. for farmers and the wage insurance program estimated by c.b.o. to total about $100 million for two years. so here you had a program that had been expanded from its original intent with benefits going to government employees,

service sector employees, t.a.a. benefits going to communities, t.a.a. benefits going to farms, t.a.a. benefits going to firms under the dubious guise of a temporary economic stimulus. this is what the white house and the other side in congress were telling us had to be reauthorized in order to pass the free trade agreements. my amendment also addresses the claim made by some that the agreement in the majority leader's substitute amendment not only reduces t.a.a. from stimulus levels but also much lower in several areas. however, according to a recent heritage foundation analysis, this may not be accurate. this is important, so let me read this analysis at length. this is from the heritage foundation report. "instead of cutting t.a.a. back to pre-stimulus levels, the proposal restores and solidifies the most alarming aspects of the

stimulus expansion at a yet-unknown cost. it keeps the 2009 surplus expansion for service sector workers. t.a.a. was originally intended to provide income maintenance and job training to workers from the manufacturing sector. the stimulus bill expanded eligibility to include workers from the service and public sectors. this expansion expired in february, but the proposal restores t.a.a. eligibility for service sector workers. it restores the stimulus expansion of benefits for job losses unrelated to f.t.a.'s. the proposal retains the stimulus expansion of providing t.a.a. benefits to any workers who lost their jobs to overseas production, not just t.a.a.-certified jobs that were lost to free trade agreements. it reinstates the stimulus 161% increase in trade adjustment

assistance for workers job training spending. the proposal cements the stimulus spending expansion of t.a.a. for workers job training at $575 million per year from $220 million. an increase of $355 million per year. it continues the stimulus creation of a new and duplicative job training program. the proposal keeps the t.a.a. community college and career training program which has appropriations authorizations of $500 million per year from 2011 through 2014. this new job training program is just one of the 47 employment and training programs operated across nine agencies by the federal government. let me repeat that. this is another proposal to spend $500 million for job training, even though we already

have 47 employment and training programs operated across nine agencies by the federal government. it partially reinstates the stimulus increase in health coverage tax credit, it solidifies the wage subsidies for older workers as a permanent program. the prestimulus t.a.a. was a temporary five-year demonstration program that paid 50% of the difference between new and old wages of displaplacd older workers. it subsidized the wages of older workers earning less than $50,000 for up to $10,000 over two years. after change the program's name to "reemployment t.a.a.," the stimulus expansion increased the wage subsidy to $12,000 over two years for displaced older workers earning less than $5,000 and made the program -- $55,000

and made the program permanent. while it reduces the wage subsidies to prestimulus levels it also cements into law the permanency of the wage subsidy program. it retains the stimulus expansion of the union veba handout. despite having nothing to do with international trade, the stimulus expansion of t.a.a. extended the htct to voluntary employee beneficiary associations. bankruptcy court can allocate a portion of an out-of-business employer's assets to this program which assumes responsibilities for retirees' health coverage. this expansion primarily benefits unions. under the proposal, the federal government would cover 72.5% of the cost of retiree health benefits at bankrupt companies. this coverage occurs regardless of whether the bankruptcies are related to free trade. let's look at an example of

excess created in the temporary stimulus expansion of the t.a.a. program the taxpayers are still on the hook for. according to a february 2011 study by senator coburn entitled "help wanted: how federal job training programs radi are failg workers," quote, "taxpayers may have a case of indigestion when they learn that nearly two years after the stimulus us will was enactedder their money is paying blobster men, blueberry farmers to attend job training sessions on jobs they are already trained to do. the stimulus reauthorized the trade adjustment assistance for farmers' program administered by the u.s. department of agriculture, a program that provides subsidies to producers of raw agricultural commodities and fishermen so they can adjust to import competition. under the stimulus, t.a.a.

benefits were enhanced to focus more on employment retraining. while the reid substitute includes a compromise to -- quote -- "pare back some of the expansions in the temporary stimulus spending legislation of 2009, it still expands t.a.a. benefits and eligibility beyond the prestimulus levels by approximately -- by my calculations at least -- $600 million a year. i acknowledge that expanding trade does temporarily put some of our workers at a disadvantage. i think remember being roundly criticized during the 2008 presidential campaign when i had the audacity to tell michigan workers the truth, that many of the jobs that had left their state for cheaper labor markets overseas were never coming back. so i understand that trade can create difficulties for some

american workers #-rbgs and i'm not opposed in principle to supporting those workers temporarily so they can develop new skills and find new jobs. that said, let's look closer at how the federal government has been going about programs like this. earlier this year, the g.a.o. released a study entitled "multiple training and employment programs providing information on colocating services and consolidating administrative structures could promote efficiency." here's what g.a.o. reported on federal employment and retraining programs, including trade adjustment assistance. and i quote: "based on our survey of agency officials, we determined that only five of the 47 programs have had impact studies that assess whether the program is responsible for improved employment outcomes. the five impact studies generally found that the effects of participation were not

consistent across programs, with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to be small, inconclusive or restricted to short-term impacts." so not only are many of these workers and training programs duplicative, the g.a.o. has found very little empirical evidence to support whether these programs are even accomplishing their intended goals. and what empirical they have found is, i repeat, small, inconclusive or restricted to short-term impacts. t.a.a. is among these prassments what's worse, we've not even been told how much this expansion of t.a.a. will cost the programs. we're teeld the legislation includes "offsets" but we know they're not real. offsets allegedly include rates for merchandising processing

fees, changes to the -- quote -- "time for remitting certain merchandise processing fees," unemployment compensation program integrity provisions to create a -- quote -- "mandatory penalty assessment on fraud claims," prohibition on noncharging due to employer fault -- quote -- "reporting of rehired employees to the directory of rehires," that's supposed to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars? i can't tell you what most of these mean, but i can tell you they're not real. even while extend the t.a.a. prestimulus program, we need to analyze whether the t.a.a. program is really doing what it was intended to do. following are some of the questions and concerns we must question: does the t.a.a. programs provide overly generous benefits to a narrow population? according to analysis from the heritage foundation, based on statistics from the bureau of

labor statistics in the third quarter of fiscal year 2009, only 1% of mass layoffs were the result of import competition of overseas relocation. is there evidence that t.a.e. benefits and training helped increased participants' earnings? anal analysis by american university found that -- quote -- "little evidence that it helps displaced workers find new, well-paying employment opportunities." in fact, t.a.a. participants experience add wage loss of 10%. the same study found that in fiscal year 2007, the federal government appropriated $855.1 million to t.a.a. programs. of this (a) amount, funding for training programs accounted for only 25%. in 2007, the office of management and budget rated the t.a.a. program as -- quote --

"ineffective." the o.m.b. found that the t.a.a. programs failed to use tax dollars effectively because among other reasons the program has failed to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of achieving its goals. let me close by reminding my colleagues how we got to our current predicament. it's midseptember of 2011 two, and a half years since obama -- since president obama took office. and we still have not received these important trade agreements that were finalized half a decade ago, all because of the white house's insistence on making a "temporary" stimulus program the dubious extension of t.a.a. into a permanent domestic spending program. this is how george will summed it up writing in "the washington post" on june 8, 2011: the piece as a appropriate now

as it was nen. "president obama is sacrificing job creation nortd placate organized labor understand is as the crisis of the organized welfare state deepens he is trying to exacerbate the entitlement mentality. on may 4, the administration announced that at last it was ready to proceed with congressional ratification of the agreements on may 16, however, it announced it would not send them until congress expands an entitlement program favored by unions." since 1974, trade adjustment assistance has provided 104 and then 156 weeks of myriad financial aid partly concurrent within 99 weeks of unemployment compensation to people including farmers and government workers and firms, even whole communities, that can more or less plausibly claim to have lost their jobs or been otherwise injured because of foreign competition.

even if the injury is just the loss of unfair advantages conferred at the expense of other americans by government protectionism. this process should be appalling to the average american who is looking for an improving economy, not special favors to certain special interest groups. at a time when our national debt has reached unsustainable levels, rat a time when congress and the american people face some truly painful choices about how to cut our federal deficit -- cut our federal budget, at a time when some are even considering enormous and dangerous cuts to our defense spending as a way to get our fiscal house in order, this is no time to throw more money than we did before the stimulus at a federal program, as the g.a.o. points out, as duplicative and possibly ineffective. i am prepared to reluctantly support t.a.a. if it were funded at the prestimulus level.

as a recognition of reality that some form of this program is required in order to pass our existing trade agreements. but we should authorize it at prestimulus levels and the not $1 more and that's what this amendment would dovment i urge my colleagues to support it. madam president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? at this moment, there's into the sufficient second. -- there's not a sufficient second. mr. mccain: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. casey: i wanted to address some of the points raised by our colleague from arizona. just a couple of areas. one, the question of the impact of the program, trade adjustment

assistance, as it's been enhanced by way of the recovery act of 2009. i'll talk about that. i'll talk about some of the reforms as well and then maybe address some of the cost questions. first of all, with regard to trade adjustment assistance prior to 2009 versus the period after that, i wanted to submit for the record -- and then i'll walk through some of this. this document i have is entitled "trade and globalization assistance act. ings" and then the acronym t tggaa. may 2009 through march 2011, a department of labor documentment, a one-page document. i ask that that be made part of the record. the presiding officer: twowks. mr. casey: having made that part of the record, let me go by

form of vim what it depicts. first of all, it is a document that has three columns. the first column is the estimated total workers certified under new provisions, meaning the changes made to t.a.a. as a result of the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. the second come up is the estimated total workers certified -- and again certified meaning certified under t.a.a. -- under all provisions of t.a.a. and finally the estimated percentage of workers certified as a result of the changes made. and what it shows is if you look across the country, the estimated total workers certified under all provisions is 447,235 people. of that, the increase in essence because of the 2009 changes are 185,783.

and if you look at the percentage, that's a 41% increase. so the basic point here after a long explanation is very simple. because of the changes made in 2009, we are able to help the united states government by way of t.a.a. was able to help 41% more individuals. that's relevant because it was helping folks be retrained, helping them get skills they need for a new career or job you just at the time they really needed it. the worst economic catastrophe in a hundred years other than the great depression. so if there was ever a time when we needed to make sure that t.a.a. worked and it has worked, but also if there was ever a time when we wanted to make sure that t.a.a. was strengthened and enhanced, it was what happened the last couple of years. and that's really the point, is

that the 2009 changes made were made because we were in the throes, the teeth, the grip of the worst economic downturn in a hundred years other than the 1930's. let me title a couple of states. what that means is for example in my home state of pennsylvania, if you look at the total number of workers helped, in this time period and again you're talking about roughly two years, may of 2009 to june of 2011, pennsylvania, 27,401 people helped. workers helped, i should say. of that, the -- that, about 36% were helped solely, solely because of the recovery act changes. so i know a good bit about the workers in our state. they needed that help. they needed the help that was provided as a result of the

recovery act. so we have good evidence that a lot of folks were helped, certified, and then enrolled in programs to give them the skills they need. the presiding officer from the state of new york knows as well how difficult this recession has been on workers in new york. the total number of workers certified in new york in that two-year time period was 18,795, but half of that, a little more than 50% were helped as a result of the 2009 changes made. so i say that to highlight and emphasize that the 2009 changes allowed more workers to be retrained to get the skills they need to go back to work. because i think that's what we're all about here. democrats and republicans all say that they want workers to get back into the work force. this is one of the ways that we do it. it's very practical. in order to get from here to

there, from unemployment to employment, and in a lot of cases to a new job, a new career, you need to be trained and that's what t.a.a. does. i highlight that as well, and i'll highlight two more, two more or three more states. chairman baucus from the great state of montana, his state was helped as well. their increase based upon the 2009 changes was close to 50%. so almost 50% more workers in the state of montana were helped as well to get the skills they need. i mentioned as well my colleague senator brown who has worked so hard on this, 7,706 more workers in the state of ohio were certified to get the skills and the training they need because of these changes. and then finally i mention as well our colleague from arizona arizona, if you look at the

total number of arizona workers certified, 8,540 workers certified in total. but of that 8,540, some 4,969, so in arizona, the percent increase of workers who were helped or certified for new training, that number, that's a 58.16% increase. so the increase in arizona was even higher. in some states it was even higher than that. so the point here is that 2009 wasn't just a couple of changes made to enhance the program or expand it just for the sake of expanding a program. i think the evidence shows that we've certified more workers who have to go through a process to be certified, in order for to us provide help by way of the federal government and other partners helping us retrain workers.

i think the evidence is pretty clear that that's been a very positive change to give more workers the skills they need to compete. and let me say as well our colleague from arizona, i appreciate what he said about t.a.a., that he supports it. we may have a disagreement about how to get there. he apparently doesn't want the 2009 changes to be made part of any effort going forward, but i appreciate the fact that he has expressed support for t.a.a. and i appreciate the fact that when senator baucus, senator brown and i and others in the latter days of 2010 were trying to get an expansion of t.a.a., we worked with senator mccain to try to negotiate something and he was very willing to talk and to work and come together and i appreciate that because we need that bipartisanship, we need that collegiality to move this forward. even though we have a

disagreement about the changes made, i appreciate his willingness to work with us back in december and to continue to work with us. let me make one more point or two. one basic point about reform. folks have criticized -- will criticize programs and say programs aren't sometimes going true the kind of changes we hope to reform them. but we should note for the record that in 2008 the g.a.o. released a study which revealed a number of issues -- i should say highlighted a number of issues with trade adjustment assistance. they set forth findings, and that's why g.a.o. is important. we shouldn't just allow programs to go on for years without some kind of reporting accountability, performance measures, call it what you will. g.a.o. pointed out problems that they believed could be the subject of reform for t.a.a.,

and the 2009 recovery act changes that we're debating here on the floor and that we're debating as a result of senator mccain's amendment, those recommendations were the foundation of some of the changes in 2009. and here's what they are. i'm just going to highlight them quickly. here's what we're talking about. the amendment that we're considering or the effort that we're working on to expand t.a.a. does a number of things we should highlight. in addition to making more workers eligible to train them, it does a couple things. first of all, it consolidates administration, that's an important thing to highlight. it consolidates case management, it consolidates job search and relocation funding, under the new dollars for job training. the amendment also eliminates separate funding streams that were in place before. but it also allows states the flexibility to use a portion of

the training funds for administration and for case management costs. states must prioritize these funds for training and case management but administrative costs are capped at 10% of the funds. and states can also use these funds to pay for 90% of the cost of job search and relocation, up to $1,250. finally, the amendment includes 30 new performance metrics and accountability measures across all t.a.a. programs. so what's the point? the point is very simple. had you a g.a.o. study in 2008 that recommended changes to t.a.a. you have a recovery act, enacted for a variety of reasons, some of which spoke directly to t.a.a. in 2009. those reforms from the g.a.o. study were incorporated in the 2009 changes. so if we stay with the original

non-2009 provisions, we won't have these reforms built in. so g.a.o. has pointed out some issues that we should address and they were addressed in 2009, and that's why -- another rope, another good reason to support the amendment that would include those 2009 changes. and finally, on the question of cost or offsets, the ten-year cost for t.a.a. is now $962 million over ten years. that's cut way back, as much as half, cut by as much as half. there are three offsets and we'll talk about them more on the record, but there are three offsets. the first, the so-called merchandise processing fee, that raises $1.77 billion. the second on unemployment insurance, that accounts for $320 million. and then finally the medicare

quality improvement organizations, that raises another $330 million. so there are offsets and they are three in number and the total cost is now $962 million over ten years. i think a reasonable price to pay for the substantial training and retraining that t.a.a. provides for our workers who are in the horrific nightmare of job loss and the destruction of their careers and frankly, in many cases the deficit reduction of their family. with that, madam president, by yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. casey: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during the session of the estimate. think have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and they be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. casey: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated once again. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i ask that all time time --

the time in the quorum call be divided equally. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. i would ask that the -- that the -- i note the absence of a quorum thank you. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah.

mr. hatch: i'd ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: thank you. madam president, i rise in support of my amendment 641. as i explained yesterday, this amendment really is about fundamental fairness. the president wants t.a. and has held hostage three free trade agreements to get it. while most of us want these free trade agreements and i think it is wrong for at th t.a.a. to moe forward while the f.t. a's lafng wish. my language will ensure that all four legislative ships arrive at port at the same time. it is time for the entire trade agenda to move forward n august as he toured the midwest, the president called upon congress to take the agreements up -- quote -- "right now." to help create jobs. this wh hollow call for action typifies the president's approach to the trade agenda. he appears to be embracing the agreements and pushing for their quick approval but like so many of the president's trade

initiatives, his words do not match his deeds. in reality, congress cannot take up these agreements -- quote -- "right now" -- unquote. president obama is relying upon the trade law called trade promotion authority to protect each of these agreements from being blocked or amend by congress. in order to take advantage of this statutory authority, it is not congress but the president who must first -- who must take the first step and submit each agreement for consideration. if the president does not submit these agreements, congress cannot act under the trade promotion authority. here is a chart which outlines the t.p.a. process called -- quote -- "how a trade agreement moves through congress under trade promotion authority." this is taken directly from the web site of the office of the united states trade representative. it clearly shows that congress cannot act until the president

submits the agreements. but why take responsibility for moving the agreements when it's much easier to blame their continued delay on congress? the fact is, the president wants all the benefits of trade promotion authority but none of the responsibility. once they were called out on the mismatch between the words and the deeds, the administration finally reined in their rhetoric but provided little guidance as to what their actual plans are. in the meantime, republicans continue to push for consideration of the three pending f.t.a.'s. back in july a group of republican senators signed a letter vowing to help the administration achieve its objective of gaining approval of trade adjustment assistance in exchange for submitting the f.t.a.'s. despite a clear path forward, the president remains silent to this day. and at president continues to delay, our country cedes --

c-e-d-e-s -- each of these free trade agreement markets to our foreign competitors and they are taking them over because we're dillydallying here instead of doing what's right. our economy and our workers are suffering under who are refuseic levels of unemployment, almost one in ten american workers sought of a job under this administration, and we can't afford to throw away any opportunity to create jobs, yet this is precisely what the president is doing. and the president himself has said, these three trade agreements, once put into law, will amount to 250,000 new jobs. that's not something to sniff at. while our economy remains troubled and while the rest of the world watches in bewilderment as the united states lets other countries take over our export markets, we hear nothing but silence from the president. a case in point: the european union's exports to south korea increased almost 45% in the first 20 days since that agreement went into force on

july 1. their share of korea's import market increased from 9.5% to 10.3% in just three weeks. meanwhile, the u.s. share of korea's import market dropped from 10.5% to 8.4%. unless we act quickly, these trends are likely to continue. in an open letter to the president and congress up to 120 food groups and companies wrote that -- quote -- "if there is any doubt about the seriousness of the problem for u.s. agricultural exports, one need only consider the damage that has already been done by the delay in implementing the colombia free trade agreement. argentina and brazil negotiated trade agreements with colombia that have given them preferential access. as a result, u.s.-produced corn, wheat and soybeans have been hit hard with the combined share of colombia imports for these

products falling to 28% from 78% since 2008." that's a big drop, mainly because of the dillydallying on this trade agreement. an agreement entered into canada will only make the problem worse for u.s. exporters and our farmers. fact that each of these agreements is critical to our economy, for my home state of utah and for workers across the country, they mean more opportunity than jobs. it's a slam dunk for the president to create jobs by just getting these agreements up here and getting them passed. the national association of manufacturers estimates that u.s. workers lose $8 million in wages and benefits every day that these agreements are delayed. now i for one stand ready to continue to fight for their

consideration and approval. we've come a long way this year, but we're not yet done. i hope the president will heed my comments and submit these tkpwraepts to congress so we can -- agreements to skopbg we can approve them but history has shown this president won't act unless he's forced to. this amendment will continue to put pressure on him to act. i encourage my colleagues to support it. the taoeuplt for dithering -- the time for deliberation is over. let's adopt my amendment. submission of three pending free trade agreements by the president and their quick enactment into law. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. baucus: madam president, it is my understanding there will be two votes at approximately 12:30. one on the amendment offered by the senator from utah, senator hatch; and the other by the senator from minnesota. i would like to explain in a few minutes why i think it's advisable for the senate not to adopt those two amendments. let me first address the amendment offered by my good friend from utah, senator hatch. there are a lot of people looking for work. today about 14 million americans are looking for work. more than 6 million have been out of work for about six months

or at least six months. these americans looking to put in a good day's work, looking to provide for their family. at the same time many employers can't find enough skilled workers to fill the jobs that are open. it's very difficult because employers need people with specialized people. this is becoming more and more true with each passing year. they need workers who are good at math. they need workers who are good with their hands, trained in high-tech machinery. the bottom line is employers need an educated and skilled work force. trade adjustment assistance can help bridge this gap. trade adjustment assistance can train workers and connect them with employers who are looking to grow their businesses. let me mention a fellow who has been a big beneficiary who has been helped by this program. his name is chris allen. chris lost his job in jefferson

city, montana, in may of 2009. because of trade adjustment assistance, chris was able to go to school at the helena college of technology. he wanted to be a diesel mechanic. he made the dean's list most of the semisters. in may, 2011, he graduated. in fact, he got his degree on a friday and started work the very next monday. his new job at new holland trader company in belgrade earns him $18 an hour. and chris hasn't stopped there. he continues to hone his skills at montana resources, keeping up to date on the latest technology and machinery. in this fast-paced globalized economy, human capital is the key to our country's competitiveness and economic vitality. americans like chris know the benefits of a good day's work, but he couldn't have done this without trade adjustment assistance. and that's why i must oppose the

hatch amendment. the amendment would withhold trade adjustment assistance benefits in this bill until the free trade agreements with south korea, colombia and panama are approved. it would delay americans like chris from getting the help they need to find good-paying jobs. an amendment would delay businesses like u-haul and trade company from hiring employees and growing their company. the senate is here this week to consider the g.s.p. trade adjustment assistance bill. it is my hope the senate will pass it in short order and send the bill to the house which is expected to pass it shortly. we have an agreement, that is an agreement between the leadership of both the house and the senate, an agreement on how the congress will consider trade adjustment assistance and also how to consider free trade agreements.

there is no need to legislate this process. in fact, doing so could substantially delay the process and disrupt this agreement. not just disrupt trade adjustment assistance but disrupt passage of free trade agreements. i might add, madam president, that there is a difference between the legislative process with respect to trade adjustment assistance and free trade agreements. trade adjustment assistance is legislation. it goes to the usual legislative process. it can be delayed. there is no requirement that it be voted on. that is not true with free trade agreements. once the president sends up a free trade agreement, it enjoys a certain fast-track process under which there must be a vote in both bodies after a certain period of time. so it really is not imperative between the two. it is not imperative between the legislative process for one and

the special legislative fast track for the other. it is why the agreement was reached, encouraging trust on both sides for the trade adjustment assistance amendment to be passed by both bodies first before the president could send up the free trade agreements. he has indicated he will do so. i have very strong assurance from the white house that's the case, and in fact that is the agreement with the leadership. if the trade adjustment assistance passes, the free trade agreement can come up to be voted on and passed in the house and then voted on and passed in the senate. so the best way to support our trade agenda and the best way to support free trade agreements is to not accept the amendment that has been offered by my good friend from utah so we can get both passed very quickly. madam president, virtually the same is true with respect to the amendment offered by senator mccain. madam president, i oppose

senator mccain's amendment to to -- i oppose his amendment. he wants to go back and undo some of the progress that was made in trade adjustment assistance. let's start with the 2002 trade adjustment assistance law. that made important changes in trade adjustment assistance. in fact, i helped write that law. in 2002, trade adjustment assistance covered manufacturing workers and it covered workers whose jobs shifted to countries with which we had a free trade agreement, so it covered workers who are -- who were in manufacturing that lost their jobs and it covered workers whose jobs were shifted to countries with which we had a free trade agreement, that is is not covered. other aspects of american employment like services, it did not cover the jobs shifted to countries with which we did not have the free trade agreement.

that 2002 law not only covered manufacturing workers and workers whose job shifted to companies with which we had a free trade agreement, it also doubled training funds, doubled it. training is so critical, it also provided a new tax credit to help americans better afford health insurance for themselves and their families. madam president, that is no small item. we all know how hard it is to get health insurance, especially for individuals and small firms. i'm not talking about big companies. we're talking about individuals who have lost their jobs. we also know how expensive health care is. therefore, a great need for health insurance. again, that 2002 change to trade adjustment assistance doubled training funds. it doubled training funds. if training is so important in today's modern society and provided a new tax credit to help americans pay for health insurance. our economy has changed since 2002. america's strength in

manufacturing expanded to include a robust services sector, which is now 80% of our economy, 80% of our economy, madam president, today is services. it's all the things. it's call centers, insurance, everything you can think of characterized as services, and america's trade with foreign nations is ended to countries like chien and -- like china and india, big countries with which we do not have free trade agreements. so the service sector has expanded just since 2002, and we have trade with other countries who are not -- with which we do not have free trade agreements. i believe that trade adjustment assistance should cover workers in both manufacturing and services, and it should cover workers whose jobs move to any country, especially china, whether it's an f.t.a. country, free trade agreement country or not, any country. these change realities prompted

me and my colleagues to update that program, update it from what it was in 2002, update it in 2009. the updated 2009 law broad trade adjustment assistance -- brought trade adjustment assistance more fully to the 21st century by providing americans with training for the new economy. unfortunately, those expanded provisions expired in february. they're gone, and that had a big impact. thousands of workers were denied access, thousands because of the expiration of the expansion of trade adjustment assistance. for example, more than 1,000 services sector workers in both texas and virginia were denied t.a.a. benefits when the 2009 law expired earlier this year. these workers likely would be eligible under the trade adjustment assistance compromise i negotiated with chairman camp. chairman david camp, chairman of the house ways and means committee and i and our staffs spent a lot of time getting an agreement, an agreement on trade adjustment assistance, what the provisions should be, how far

the expansion should go and how it should be paid for. it was an agreement, a bipartisan agreement. there is not much of that around here, madam chairman, but we worked hard and got the job done. i must say, however, under senator mccain's amendment, these workers i mentioned, these service workers would remain shut out. they would qualify. so i think, rather, it's time to bring us into the modern world, time to provide equal access to all americans regardless of whether they work on a factory floor or a call center. it shouldn't matter if they lose their job on account of trade, they should get trade adjustment assistance benefits, and also regardless of whether the job moves to mexico, a country with whom we do have a free trade agreement or if the job moves to a country like china, a country with whom we do not have a free trade agreement. so i therefore urge my colleagues to oppose the mccain amendment. i think it's unwise. i might add something else, too,

madam president, and that's this. if either of these two amendments pass, guess what? it's all gummed up over in the house, and the house therefore cannot take up the clean trade adjustment assistance amendment, and we have to go back again, amend it again back and forth. and you know what that's going to do? it will do two things. that's going to jeopardize passage of an updated trade adjustment assistance, and guess what else? it's going to jeopardize passage of free trade agreements. i think a vast majority of members of this body and in the other body together want both these matters passed. i must say if we had amendments here, despite them being defective on the merits, but if amendments are added, it's going to delay the process further, the house will have to amend it again, send it back over here and it's going to very much delay passage of both trade adjustment assistance and free trade agreements. for those reasons, i urge that both amendments not be agreed

to. i yield the floor. mr. hatch: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: nothing of the sort is going to happen. the fact of the matter is we have had nothing but delays by the president. just a few weeks ago, he was accusing us of not passing the free trade agreements when he knows we can't even consider them until he sends them up. there have been a lot of games played with this. i remember last spring in our committee when the trade representatives said we have a few more things we have to work out on panama and colombia, and we will definitely bring this -- these -- send these free trade agreements up before the august recess. the august recess, we got near the august recess. they said oh, we need one other thing. we need trade adjustment assistance. now, if they need trade adjustment assistance -- and i have no doubt that's going to pass in the senate, if there is a fair process here, and i don't believe there is any doubt it will pass in the house, and the agreement worked out by the distinguished chairman and

chairman camp over in the house probably will be -- thought about, and i have to vote against it. but the fact of the matter is all my amendment does, it does evidence some -- some distrust of this process. all my amendment does, it says look, we're not going to allow trade adjustment assistance to go into effect until these free trade agreements are sent up by the president, passed. they can pass -- both bodies can pass the trade adjustment assistance on this bill, and that's fine with me. my amendment says t.a.a. does not go into effect until the president submits these amendments, these three treaties, and they are passed and become law. then trade adjustment assistance goes. i mean, that's a very fair way of doing this. it's a way of saying to everybody let's get rid of the

mistrust, let's do this in a straight-up way. let's do it so everybody knows what's going to happen. trade adjustment assistance will automatically come into effect but only -- ultimately come into effect but only after the administration lives up to submitting these trade agreements and they are passed. now, why would we want trade adjustment assistance to pass if these free trade agreements don't pass? it's just another -- another big cost to the government. keep in mind, the people who are out of work are getting unemployment insurance. what trade adjustment assistance does is add payments on top of that to their unemployment insurance. i mean, why would we do that if we're not going to have these free trade agreements become law? it just makes sense. mine is a practical amendment. it says et let's get rid of the game playing. we'll do this if you do this. frankly, the president has promised to do it and we still

are standing here waiting for the free trade agreements to be sent up here. to me, it's -- it's hard to imagine why the president isn't doing this. now, by the way, on the trade adjustment assistance, 7% of our nongovernment workers, a little less than 7% are unionized, and yet a third of these payments will go to union members. now, i think there is a -- i don't blame my colleagues on the other side for wanting to help anybody who is out of work or anybody who belongs to a trade union, but do we always have to do it in a slanted way that helps one small sector of the -- of the workers in this country and not the rest of them? now, it's a problem. we have unemployment insurance to take care of people who are out of work. we should do that. i