American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009 - Conference Report

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak on concerns I have with the Medicaid and welfare provisions in the conference agreement we will be voting on shortly.

This bill would provide an $87 billion slush fund for the States.

As I have said on the Senate floor numerous times during this debate, States don't need $87 billion for their Medicaid Programs.

The Congressional Budget Office analyzed an amendment I wrote to target funds just for enrollment-driven increases in Medicaid spending. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office gave us the answer for how much it would cost to provide federal funding for the additional Medicaid enrollment
caused by the economic downturn. And that cost is not $87 billion; it is 1.8 billion.

The remaining $75 billion in this bill goes to helping States fill in their deficits. Giving States almost eight times what they need for enrollment-driven Medicaid does not meet the definition of targeted in my book.

Now, we will hear that this $87 billion Medicaid slush fund for States is necessary to avoid tax increases at the State and local level. We will also hear that vital State services will be cut unless the Federal Government cuts this big blank check to the States. But when asked to tie the taxpayer dollars to guarantees that the States will not raise taxes or cut services, we have been turned back by Members on the other side.

I heard some folks on the other side of the aisle claim the formula for distributing the funds better targets relief to the States that need it most by using unemployment rates in the formula.

Using unemployment makes sense to target--there is nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't work if you then funnel the money for the States through Medicaid.

Let me explain. Every State has a different sized Medicaid program--some States have bigger Medicaid Programs and some have smaller ones.

By using Medicaid to distribute the 87 billion, the formula in the bill necessarily biases the funds towards States with large Medicaid Programs, like California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York.

Now we'll hear that those States need more because they have larger Medicaid Programs. But remember it only takes $10.8 billion to pay for enrollment-driven Medicaid spending increases.

So States like California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York get favored treatment and everyone else gets short-changed.

Simply put, this way of targeting misses the target. The formula in this bill clearly fails the targeting test of the three Ts.

This bill also undermines key principles of welfare reform. While it makes sense to provide a safety net for families that have lost their jobs, this bill moves welfare policy in the wrong direction.

The historic Welfare Reform law signed by President Clinton already has a built-in mechanism to help states during an economic downturn. That law provides welfare contingency funds for States in economic need.

But rather than make the existing contingency fund more accessible to States, this bill creates a new fund that includes policies that are not consistent with the principles of meaningful welfare reform.

For the first times since the abolishment of the aid to families with dependent children program, this new fund gives States financial incentives for expanding their welfare caseloads. Rather than encourage States to reduce their welfare rolls, this provision rewards States for enrolling families on welfare.

This bill also relieves States of the responsibility to engage able-bodied adults on welfare in work training, work experience programs or education.

It makes no sense to promote policies that encourage States to expand their welfare rolls while loosening requirements on States to provide work training, work experience programs or education. At this critical time, these job training activities are even more important than ever.

These changes will not stimulate the economy nor will they lead to productive jobs. In fact, these policies could trap families in deep and persistent poverty.

Mr. President, that is clearly not what we should be doing in this bill and it is another reason why I am unable to support the legislation.

Mr. President, I am back again to speak about some provisions that are buried deep within this stimulus bill that was put together behind closed doors without input from the minority. I know this was done behind closed doors because I was a conferee to the negotiations and I wasn't even in the room.

Now, I have always been a strong advocate of opening up Government, making it more transparent, making it more accountable, and shedding some sunlight on how the Government works for the people. So, in that vain, I am here today to shed some light on provisions hidden away in the conference report that will actually hurt transparency and accountability of taxpayer dollars.

Inspectors general are the front line against fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer dollars at Federal agencies. They are independent from the Federal agencies they oversee and are independent from Congress. They are the watchdogs that are responsible for sifting through all the budgets and expenditures by conducting audits, performing program evaluations, investigating allegations of wrongdoing, and working closely with whistleblowers to uncover the truth. Inspectors general point out problems that need to be fixed and save taxpayers billions of dollars a year. They are integral to any effort to stamp out waste and deter fraud and abuse. So, I was pleased to see that they weren't forgotten in the bill and were given some more resources to oversee the billions in new spending. However, tucked away in this bill is a provision that threatens to micromanage these independent watchdogs in a manner that is contrary to not only the spirit and intent of the Inspectors General Act of 1978, but the 31 years of results these dedicated fraud fighters have worked to achieve.

I will point my colleagues to division A, page 465 of the conference report. There, section 1527 is, ironically titled, ``Independence of Inspectors General.'' Great title, something you would think you would like to support. If you keep reading, it states that ``nothing in this subtitle shall affect the independent authority of an inspector general to determine whether to conduct an audit or investigation of covered funds.'' Again, a nice statement that reinforces the fact that we want inspectors general to be independent, but, unfortunately, the provision doesn't stop there.

If you read a little further you will find that the bill gives a new entity, the ``Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board'' the authority to, request ``that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.'' It goes on further to say that if an IG objects to being told what to do and acts independently--as we expect them to--he or she must submit a report to that board, the agency they oversee, and to Congress within 30 days.

Now, I don't know about everyone else around here, but that sounds to me like a lot of redtape for an independent watchdog to go about doing their job. In fact, it is fitting that the acronym for this board is RAT, because that is what I smell here.

But, most importantly, this provision strikes right at the heart of any inspectors' general independence. It appears to me that the majority that crafted this bill, isn't all that interested in transparency and accountability. Let me say it loud and clear: I don't like this one bit and from the chatter I hear, the IGs don't like it either--especially if it involves a criminal investigation.

Now, some of my colleagues will say this isn't too burdensome and that it will help coordinate the work of inspectors general. Others say that the new board will contain IGs who will have input so it won't stifle investigations. Both of these arguments lack merit when you peel the onion back.

Any new limitation on the independence of inspectors general is dangerous. Here, even though an inspector general is allowed to buck the new board and continue an investigation they are told not to do, he or she must then put together a report for that board, the agency that is being investigated, and Congress, all within 30 days. This will take resources away from investigating and auditing fraud, and turn a truly independent IG into a report writer.

As to the argument about the make-up of the new board, it is true that inspectors general will make up the bulk of the board. However, it will be chaired by either: the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, a Presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate, or any other individual subject to Senate confirmation. So, based upon this model, you could have a situation where the President appoints a sitting Cabinet Secretary to oversee the board that oversees the inspectors general that oversee the agency run by the Secretary in charge of the board. I don't want to even try to imagine the scenario where the head of the board is a private sector corporate figurehead of a company that has a financial conflict stemming from the fact that the company receives stimulus money. The system this bill creates is not only unworkable; it is loaded with potential for conflicts of interest that are simply mind blowing.

I also question the need for yet another board full of Government officials. Why do we need yet another Government entity? The inspectors general have worked cooperatively for years via the President's Council for Integrity and Efficiency, PCIE, and the Executive Councils for Integrity and Efficiency, ECIE, which are made up of inspectors general. These entities were recently rolled into the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, CIGIE, by the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008. This new board created by the stimulus bill will simply duplicate already existing efforts in addition to hindering the independence of inspectors general.

We have repeatedly recognized the need for independent IGs and we unanimously passed the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 that was signed into law by President Bush last October. That law was passed because Congress and the IGs recognized that changes were needed to strengthen the independence of inspectors general. It included simple, straightforward reforms such as ensuring each inspector general had access to independent legal advice free and clear of agency influence. It seems to me we all agreed independence was needed for IGs so long as it occurred when there was a Republican President. I hate to think that there is some conspiracy here, but when we have all backed the independence of IGs in the past, you have to question the change of direction buried deep within this bill.

This is a dangerous provision that will hamper oversight, restrict transparency, and damage the independence of inspectors general. It works against the pledge of transparency and accountability that President Obama has advocated for and puts another layer of bureaucracy between taxpayers and the truth about how the hundreds of billions of dollars are spent.

Mr. President, I would like to talk about an immigration provision that was included in the final conference report, as well as a couple that were not.

First, the good news. I was pleased to hear that the conference report retained the Sanders-Grassley amendment to ensure businesses that receive TARP funds go through a very rigorous hiring process before employing new H-1B visa holders. Hiring American workers for limited available jobs should be a top priority for businesses taking taxpayer money through the TARP program. With the unemployment rate at 7.2 percent, there is no need for companies to hire foreign workers through the H-1B program--particularly in the banking industry. According to an AP article, the banking industry requested more than 21,800 visas for foreign guest workers over the last 6 years. At least 100,000 workers were laid off in the banking industry in the past few months. Now that many qualified American bank employees are unemployed, banks who want to hire workers shouldn't have a hard time finding what they need from an American workforce.

The Sanders-Grassley language requires that a company receiving TARP funds and applying for workers under the H-1B process must operate as an ``H-1B dependent company.'' This means they will still be able to hire H-1B visa holders, but must comply with the H-1B dependent employer rules which include attesting to actively recruiting American workers; not displacing American workers with H-1B visa holders; and not replacing laid off American workers with foreign workers. This restriction would last for 2 years.

So this amendment would ensure that TARP recipients comply with strict hiring standards in order not to displace qualified American workers. The bottom line is that if banks are going to be getting TARP money--American taxpayer money then they need to be hiring American workers. While I support the H-1B program, it needs to be used in the way it was intended and not to replace qualified American workers. This amendment helps to ensure that taxpayer money going to assist companies get back on their feet also helps American workers keep and/or get jobs.

Now, the bad news. I am extremely disappointed that the final bill doesn't include some very important E-verify provisions. The House passed stimulus bill included language to extend the E-verify program, a program that allows employers to verify the social security numbers and legal status of newly hired employees. The E-verify process has been an extremely successful program for employers. In addition, the House passed stimulus bill included language that would have made it mandatory for companies receiving TARP funds to use the E-verify system when hiring new employees. These two provisions passed the House with broad bipartisan support.

Here on the Senate side, my friend Senator Sessions filed several amendments to extend E-verify and require TARP recipients to use E-verify. I fully supported those amendments. Unfortunately, the good Senator from Alabama was blocked from offering his amendments to the Senate bill--even though, if given the chance, I am sure that his amendments would have passed with the same overwhelming vote as the House amendments.

I was ready to support the House E-verify provisions in conference. As we all know, Republican conferees were shut out from any negotiation of this conference report. But we were extremely hopeful that the provisions were going to be retained, because of strong bipartisan support on both sides of Capitol Hill.

So I was really surprised to hear that House leadership stripped E-verify completely from the conference report. Many people supported these provisions and understood their importance. These E-verify provisions would have helped stimulate the economy by preserving jobs for a legal workforce, so it is outrageous that they were not included in the final conference agreement. The American taxpayer is spending nearly a trillion dollars to spur the economy. It's not much to ask that the companies receiving hard earned taxpayer dollars actually make sure they are employing legal workers. The exclusion of both the E-verify reauthorization and the requirement that companies getting TARP money have to use the E-verify program is truly a colossal failure on the part of our congressional leadership to stimulate the economy and ensure that jobs go to legal workers.

The fight is not over. I am a strong believer in the E-verify program. I will continue to work with my colleagues to make sure that this important program is reauthorized and utilized by as many employers as possible.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. President, yesterday I spoke about how the trade adjustment assistance provisions in the conference report represent the one shining example of bipartisanship in this mammoth legislation. It's unfortunate that the overall conference report wasn't the product of a similarly bipartisan process, but that missed opportunity should not detract from the tremendous bipartisan effort that my colleagues and our staffs undertook to bring about this significant achievement in reforming and reauthorizing our trade adjustment assistance programs. I want to take a moment to note for the record my appreciation to those who have worked so hard to produce this good compromise legislation on trade adjustment assistance.

I will begin by thanking my colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member Camp. Our bicameral negotiations over the last 6 weeks have been intensive, and at times difficult but always professional and constructive. Chairman Rangel was ably advised by Tim Reif and Viji Rangaswami, his respective staff director and deputy staff director on the trade subcommittee, as well as Alex Perkins, international trade counsel to the chairman, and Indivar Dutta-Gupta, adviser to the chairman on the professional staff of the subcommittee on income security and family support. Congressman Camp was ably advised by his chief trade counsel, Angela Ellard, as well as David Thomas, international trade counsel to the ranking member.

Of course I must thank my partner on the Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus, with whom I have been actively overseeing the operation of our trade adjustment assistance programs since the last time we implemented reforms in 2002. We have been negotiating over this legislation since April of last year, so this is the culmination of a lot of effort by our two staffs. My thanks begin with his staff director, Russ Sullivan, and extend to Demetrios Marantis, his chief international trade counsel, and the rest of his trade team, particularly Hun Quach, Ayesha Khanna, and Darci Vetter, as well as Amber Cottle, Chelsea Thomas, and Janis Lazda. I would also like to thank Liz Fowler and Neleen Eisinger from his health staff, and Anya Landau French, formerly of his trade staff.

On my staff I want to thank first my staff director on the Finance Committee, Kolan Davis, and my deputy staff director and chief tax counsel, Mark Prater, for their wise counsel in managing the legislative processes that have led to today's achievement. I also want to thank my chief international trade counsel, Stephen Schaefer, who has spearheaded my oversight of trade adjustment assistance since 2003 and led my negotiating effort these many months, as well as David Ross, my international trade counsel, who played an integral role in the negotiations that produced today's compromise. In addition, I want to thank David Johanson, my international trade counsel and agricultural trade specialist, for his role in negotiating a reform of the trade adjustment assistance for farmers program, and Claudia Bridgeford Poteet, my international trade policy advisor, for her advice and support. Additional members of my staff that merit special recognition include Mark Hayes, my chief health counsel, and Andrew McKechnie, also on my health staff, as well as Kristin Bass and Colette Desmarais, formerly of my health staff. I also want to thank Chris Condeluci, my tax and benefits
counsel, as well as Lacee Oliver, an intern on my Finance Committee staff, and John Kalitka, a former detail to my Finance Committee trade staff from the Department of Commerce, for their work on trade adjustment assistance.

Our work has been supported by the substantial efforts of dedicated professionals at the Department of Labor, and my appreciation there begins with Erin Fitzgerald in the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, as well as Mark Morin and Lois Zuckerman in the Office of the Solicitor, and Erica Cantor, the administrator of the Office of National Response. I also want to thank Mason Bishop, Blake Hanlon, and Geoffrey Burr, formerly of the Department of Labor, as well as Justin McCarthy and John Bailey, formerly on the White House staff of the previous administration.

I mentioned that Chairman Baucus and I have been engaged in joint oversight of the trade adjustment assistance programs since 2002, and our oversight has included requesting a series of reports from the Government Accountability Office to examine various aspects of the operation of these programs. Among current and former personnel at the Government Accountability Office who merit special recognition for their hard work are Sigurd Nilsen, Dianne Blank, Lorin Obler, and Wayne Sylvia.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the tremendous effort of our House and Senate legislative counsels to deliver timely drafts and constructive critiques of proposed legislative provisions. On the House side I want to thank Sandra Strokoff and Mark Synnes, and here in the Senate I want to thank our experts on customs and international trade law, Polly Craighill and Margaret Roth-Warren.

As you can see, today's achievement is the result of the dedication, hard work, and commitment of many individuals. It is the culmination of years of effort, and I am confident that the result will serve to benefit American workers in Iowa and across the United States for years to come.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source