Service Workers Fairness Act

Mr. President, on December 15, 2004, my office released a white paper entitled ``Data Dearth in Offshore Outsourcing: Policymaking Requires Facts.'' This white paper is closely linked to a previous white paper entitled ``Offshore Outsourcing and America's Competitive Edge: Losing Out in the High Technology R&D and Services Sectors.'' The latter was released by my office in May 2004. A summary of that report appeared in the Record on May 21, 2004.

A key conclusion of the May paper was the absence of reliable data to measure and assess the offshore outsourcing phenomenon. We do not have good data on the offshoring problem, and the data we have are general in nature. Estimates vary widely on the number of jobs moving overseas, and the lack of reliable data contributes to incorrect conclusions about the impacts of offshore outsourcing, which can result in flawed policy responses. We need data to understand what we are facing so we can chart a sure and steady course for the future. There is enough anecdotal data about job losses to spark debate and, in some cases, result in policies which may provide a short-term fix but which do not produce longer term solutions to preserve U.S. innovation and ensure U.S. competitiveness. Comprehensive and balanced data on both job gains and job losses resulting from offshore outsourcing are essential. This data must be assembled by U.S. Federal Government agencies, including the Department of Commerce and the Department of Labor, where data- gathering capabilities are extensive and research methodologies are transparent.

The lack of data is critical because the issues raised in the May white paper are so important. The white paper was designed to stimulate a deeper review of the long-term implications for our policy responses and to change the terms of the debate on offshore outsourcing. The paper looked at rising global competition and the challenges posed to America's competitive advantage. Globalization is our current and future reality; there is no escaping it. The U.S. economy is inextricably linked to the rest of the world; our fortunes rise and fall depending on our performance with our trading partners and our competitors. Our strength and success with China, India, and other emerging markets is as important to future U.S. economic and national security as the competition with Japan and Europe was to U.S. growth over the last 50 years. The offshore outsourcing phenomenon is one of the challenging manifestations of globalization.

The May white paper found that it was not just manufacturing jobs that are subject to global outsourcing--where 2.7 million jobs have disappeared since 2000--but service sector and high-end R&D jobs are also being hit by offshore outsourcing. And it is not just call centers, data entry facilities, and other entry-level service jobs that are impacted by offshore outsourcing. Higher skill professional jobs-- from engineering, computer chip design to nanotechnology R&D--are beginning to go overseas, and with these jobs, we may be losing key parts of the talent and technology which fueled the record growth and prosperity of the 1990s. Fundamental changes are facing us, as key components of our innovation infrastructure--knowledge, capital, labor, technology and facilities--are increasingly mobile. Offshore outsourcing of labor, capital, and technology not only hurts workers but threatens our knowledge-based economy. If engineering, design, R&D, and services follow manufacturing abroad, U.S. competitiveness is weakened, and our economic prosperity and national security are threatened.

What is at stake is the ability of the United States to remain a global leader in innovation, to maintain good-paying jobs, and to expand our global market share. We must rethink long-term strategies on competitiveness, innovation, R&D, trade policy, and enforcement, as well as education and investments in human capital. However, we cannot begin to develop effective solutions until we have an understanding of the scope of the offshore outsourcing phenomenon. The need for data on offshore outsourcing is paramount.

Lord Kelvin, the 19th century Belfast-born physicist said:

When you can measure what you are speaking about and

express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when

you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers,

your knowledge is of the meager and unsatisfactory kind.

That was in a May 3, 1883 lecture to the Institute of Civil Engineers.

By improving U.S. Government data collection, we can ensure that our knowledge of offshore outsourcing is neither meager nor unsatisfactory, but informed and balanced. With improved data and analysis, we will build constructive and lasting solutions to address the challenges posed by offshore outsourcing.

I would like to thank Sara E. Hagigh of my staff and Mary Jane Bolle of the Congressional Research Service for their hard work in researching and preparing this report.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have excerpts from the white paper printed in the Congressional Record.

The material follows:

Excerpt 1, Summary of White Paper

The issue of offshore outsourcing has been at the center of

many key political and public debates over the last few

years. The term ``outsourcing'' has become part of our

everyday lexicon, gracing the covers of news magazines,

television broadcasts, and playing a central role in

Congressional debates during an election year. Most Americans

are aware of the issue of offshore outsourcing, but few of us

have an understanding of the full dimensions of the problem.

To develop a better understanding of offshore outsourcing,

my office released a white paper in May 2004 entitled

``Offshore

Outsourcing and America's Competitive Edge: Losing Out in the

High Technology R&D and Services Sectors.'' The white paper

found that it is not only manufacturing jobs that are being

outsourced overseas, where 2.7 million jobs have disappeared

since 2000. Offshore outsourcing has also begun to hit high-

end services and R&D jobs, and there is evidence that it is

not just call centers, data entry and other entry-level

service jobs that are impacted by offshoring. We are

beginning to send higher skill professional jobs overseas--

including engineering, computer chip design and

nanotechnology R&D, and with these jobs, we may be losing the

talent and technology that created the growth of the 1990s.

The white paper concluded that offshore outsourcing of high-

end services and R&D jobs could threaten our innovation

infrastructure, and therefore our economic prosperity, and

our national security.

A key conclusion of the white paper was the absence of

reliable data to measure and assess the offshore outsourcing

phenomenon. Estimates vary widely on the number of jobs

moving overseas, and the lack of reliable data contributes to

incorrect conclusions about the impacts of offshore

outsourcing. The result is flawed and ineffective policy

responses. In order to develop effective policies to address

the many facets of the offshore outsourcing challenge--

including investments in education and human capital, greater

investments in Federal, industrial, and services R&D, and

better enforcement of our trade agreements--we must have

better, more reliable data.

This paper provides a review and assessment of Federal data

on offshore outsourcing:

1. It begins by identifying a series of questions that

would produce useful data to measure offshore outsourcing.

These questions address information about job ``losses'' as

well as job ``gains'' from offshore outsourcing so we can

arrive at a balanced assessment of the impacts of offshore

outsourcing.

2. The report then surveys ten existing U.S. government

data sets, from the Departments of Labor and Commerce,

measuring aspects of offshore outsourcing. The report

enumerates strengths and weaknesses of each of the ten data

sets in measuring offshore outsourcing and identifies which

federal agency data best answer the questions posed in Table

1 of the report--Useful Data to Measure Offshore Outsourcing.

The report also contains Table 2 (Aspects of Offshore

Outsourcing Potentially Measurable with Existing Data), Table

3 (Legislative Recommendations for Improving Federal Agency

Data on Offshore Outsourcing), Appendix A (Federal Agency

Data's Strengths and Weaknesses for Measuring Offshore

Outsourcing) and Appendix B (Major U.S. trading partners).

3. Finally, the report makes five legislative

recommendations for improving Federal agency data to provide

a more useful measure of offshore outsourcing. The five

recommendations (summarized in Table 3, Legislative

Recommendations for Improving Federal Agency Data on Offshore

Outsourcing) are:

a. Extend the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program;

b. Require the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance to

report data;

c. Require Bureau of Labor Statistics to make changes to

Mass Layoff data program;

d. Require the Commerce Department to publish annual

multipliers; and

e. Link Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor

Statistics data sets.

This report represents a beginning, not the end. We must

develop reliable and comprehensive data-gathering

capabilities at U.S. government agencies to measure

employment and economic effects of offshore outsourcing.

Without a better understanding of the scope of the problem,

effective policy solutions to offshore outsourcing cannot be

developed.

This is the fifth major white paper in a recent series on

U.S. economic growth my office has released. The four

previous papers are:

1. ``Offshore Outsourcing and America's Competitive Edge:

Losing Out in the High Technology R&D and Services Sectors,''

May 11, 2004.

2. ``Making America Stronger: A Report with Legislative

Recommendations on Restoration of U.S. Manufacturing,''

September 2003.

3. ``National Security Aspects of the Global Migration of

the U.S. Semiconductor Industry,'' June 2003.

4. ``Broadband: A 21st Century Technology and Productivity

Strategy,'' May 2002.

Excerpt 2, Data We Would Like To Have: Useful Data To Measure Offshore

Outsourcing

In a perfect world, data on offshore outsourcing and its

impact on the U.S. economy would be available to answer

questions about job losses from offshore outsourcing and

counterbalancing job gains. An assessment of the impact of

offshore outsourcing on U.S. employment levels and the

overall economy must balance both job gains and job losses.

Table 1 on p. 12 sets out these questions together with

short-hand answers on where the data can be found to respond

to each question. This report will then analyze and assess

all Federal agency data on offshore outsourcing.

In prioritizing data needs, it would be most important to

have data to answer the questions in Part A and Part B of

Table 1--a total of 10 questions. Part A includes 6 questions

on job losses from offshore outsourcing and Part B poses 4

questions on counterbalancing job gains. If data were

available to answer all of the questions in Parts A and B in

Table 1, the result would be a reasonably good picture of the

positive and negative effects of offshore outsourcing on the

U.S. economy, as well as on industries, States, and

localities, and their workers. After data in Parts A and B

are gathered, it would be useful to have the data in Part C

of Table 1, which address 7 specific questions including the

role of visa programs in offshoring operations and the impact

of offshore outsourcing on career choices of U.S. students.

Table 1 shows that almost no data are being made available

at this time to provide answers to any of the questions in

Table 1. Much of the data is either unpublished or not being

collected. Some data relating to U.S. exports and U.S.

foreign direct investment (both foreign and domestic) are

gathered by the Department of Commerce, but for the more

detailed questions relating to offshore outsourcing (listed

in Part C of Table 1), no U.S. government agency collects the

data. The unavailability of basic data to answer the

questions in Parts A and B (job losses and job gains from

offshore outsourcing) is in sharp contrast to the

comprehensive data that were available to answer similar

questions related to Mexico and Canada under the North

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). These data were

available between 1994 and 2003 but are no longer being

published.

Excerpt 3, Recommendations

The next section outlines five legislative recommendations

that might be taken to produce data that would offer some

estimates of the extent and nature of offshore outsourcing.

These recommendations range from amending existing

legislation to increasing Federal agency reporting

requirements.

recommendation 1: extend the trade adjustment assistance (taa) program

One recommendation is to extend the TAA program to cover

two groups of workers not presently covered who lose their

jobs to offshore outsourcing: a) all service sector workers;

and b) workers producing ``articles'' who are currently not

covered under Sec. 113 of Title I of the Trade Act of 2002

(P.L. 107-210). Sec. 113 provides TAA benefits to workers if

they lose their jobs due to shifts in production to certain

countries, primarily countries with which the United States

has a trade agreement or a trade preference program (see

footnote 29 for a list of these 72 countries).

On the first issue of covering all displaced service sector

workers, there are a number of benefits in making this change

to the legislation authorizing the TAA program. Aside from

issues of equality in having the Trade Adjustment Assistance

Program cover all workers who lose their jobs to offshore

outsourcing, extending the program would result in data

covering virtually the complete range of jobs lost to

offshore outsourcing. From these data, analysts could

estimate the effects of offshore outsourcing on the Nation as

a whole, on individual industries, and on States and

localities. One drawback of expanding the TAA program to

provide benefits to services workers whose jobs are lost to

offshore outsourcing is that the program would cost more. No

estimate has been made on additional costs to the TAA program

resulting from covering services workers who lose their jobs

due to offshore outsourcing.

Legislation has been introduced in the 108th Congress to

extend the TAA program to cover service sector workers.

Senator Lieberman co-sponsored ``The Services Workers

Fairness Act'' (S. 2143), introduced by Senator Durbin, to

ensure that services workers losing their jobs to offshoring

are eligible for TAA benefits. Senator Lieberman also

supported an amendment to the Senate version of the Foreign

Sales Corporation-Extraterritorial Income Act bill (S. 1637)

introduced by Senators Wyden, Coleman, and Rockefeller to

extend the TAA program to cover services workers. While

the amendment failed to pass, Congress must continue

efforts to extend TAA benefits to all Americans who lose

their jobs due to offshoring, including services workers.

The second change to the TAA program would extend the TAA

program to cover workers producing articles whose job

relocates to any country. This provision was included in the

Senate-passed version of the TAA reauthorization, included in

the Trade Act of 2002, however it was yielded in the

Conference committee [See Trade Act of 2002, Conference

Report 107-624, July 26, 2002, p. 122.]. Under existing law,

TAA benefits go to workers who lose jobs when their firms

have shifted production to a country which: a) has a free

trade agreement with the United States; b) is a beneficiary

country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, the African

Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic

Recovery Act; or c) is likely to be an increase in imports to

the United States of articles like or directly competitive

with those the job loser produced. (Sec. 113, P.L. 107-210).

A review of the Department of Labor-Employment and Training

Agency's website on the TAA program shows that there are 72

countries that meet these requirements for shifts in

production (see footnote 29 of this report for the list of

countries). Yet, there are 148 members of the World Trade

Organization, and important trading partners and

key outsourcing destinations--like China and India--are not

on the list for shifts in production. This is a significant

limitation in the TAA program. At a minimum, the list of

eligible countries for production shifts should be expanded

to include all WTO members--currently 148 countries.

recommendation 2: require the office of trade adjustment assistance to

report data

A second recommendation is to require the Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance to report data which it is already

collecting on applications for TAA certification. A database

for such reported data could include the following categories

of information for certified workers: Name of company,

location of business, products produced and North American

Industry Classification System (NAICS) industry code, place

to which production has shifted, or from which new imports

are being sourced, reason for the offshore outsourcing

(imports or production shift) and number of workers affected.

Publishing data of this type would not be new for the TAA

Office. Under the NAFTA-TAA program the office made available

data on certifications: a) By number of workers affected; b)

by industry code; c) by State and locality of the job losers;

and d) by country source of the job loss (i.e., the country

which was the source of imports or the target of the

production shift). These data are potentially the best, most

complete data available because: a) They are a direct count

of the estimated number of workers potentially affected by

the various offshore outsourcing events; and b) they are

required, not voluntary, on the part of applicants for

certification.

Despite these benefits, TAA data are an imperfect measure

of the total jobs lost to offshore outsourcing. They do not

measure service-producing jobs outsourced offshore (with a

few minor exceptions), and they do not measure all goods-

producing jobs outsourced offshore. Other imperfections are

that: a) They measure potential, not actual job loss, some of

which may not actually have occurred; and b) they fail to

measure tertiary jobs lost (e.g., independent service sector

jobs which support goods-production operations outsourced

offshore, such as those in stores in areas hit by closures).

recommendation 3: require bls to make changes in mass layoff data

program

Three requirements could improve data being reported by the

Bureau of Labor Statistics on the Extended Mass Layoffs

Associated with Domestic and Overseas Relocations Survey: 1)

Reduce survey size to businesses with 25 layoffs; 2)

disaggregate (separate into component parts) data on movement

of work; and 3) report data annually instead of quarterly.

(1) Reduce Survey Size to Businesses With 25 Layoffs. The

Extended Mass Layoff Survey, which contains a question on

movement of work, could be conducted on businesses which lay

off 25 or more workers instead of businesses which lay off 50

or more workers as is currently the case. A reduction in the

size of the companies surveyed would capture more layoff

events and increase the share of offshore outsourcing

instances reported.

BLS officials estimate that expanding the Mass Layoff

Survey to layoffs of 25 workers or more would allow the

program to identify more than double the number of potential

layoff events requiring a telephone interview. BLS officials

estimate that such an expansion in the MLS survey program

will require $3.3 million in additional funds, including 3

full time equivalent employees. Of this total, $2.7 million

would go to States for the MLS employer interview and related

activity. The remaining $600,000 would support BLS data

collection, analysis, and publication activities.

Reducing the size of the business surveyed in the Extended

Mass Layoff Survey does not alter the weaknesses of such data

and survey methods, namely that the survey is voluntary and

the quality of results depends on who in the organization

responds to the survey and their knowledge of the causes of

jobs going offshore. BLS officials also raised concerns about

extra reporting burdens by reducing the size of business

surveyed.

(2) Disaggregate Data on Movement of Work. BLS could be

required to disaggregate (separate into component parts) and

report separately detailed data on the two categories of

``movement of work''--movement of work to another location

inside the United States versus movement of work to another

location outside the United States. Detailed data to be

reported could include distribution of layoffs by industry or

region of the country affected by the layoff.

Many believe that disaggregating the data is the only way

to make the data on movement of work useful. In its current

form, data on offshore outsourcing are imbedded in data on

movement of work within the United States, thus the data are

not useful for measuring offshore outsourcing except for a

few summary numbers.

Even with greater data disaggregation, the Extended Mass

Layoff Survey remains voluntary. It is widely believed that

companies are reluctant to reveal data on offshore

outsourcing, although BLS reports a better than 90 percent

response rate in the Extended Mass Layoff Survey in each of

the first three quarters of 2004. As previously noted, the

quality of survey responses depends on the company contact

person who may not readily have answers about whether the

``movement of work'' is to an offshore location or to another

location in the United States. Companies will likely argue

that providing this level of detail presents additional

burdens, both from a personnel and a financial point of view.

(3) Report Data Annually. The Department of Labor-Bureau of

Labor Statistics could be required to report the Extended

Mass Layoff Survey data annually instead of quarterly. Annual

reporting would enable more detail to be published, since

privacy rules prohibit the reporting of survey data which

represents a sample size of fewer than three businesses.

Annual reporting of data would not solve the survey's

limitations, namely that reporting is voluntary, results

depend on who responds to the survey, and the additional

reporting burdens placed on businesses. However, we could

gain very helpful data if this recommendation was

implemented.

Recommendation 4: Require DOC to Publish Annual Multipliers

The Department of Commerce should be required to publish

annual ``multipliers'' showing for goods and services

separately and combined, the number of jobs supporting a

billion dollars worth of exports in each category. The

product of the multipliers and the value of exports can then

yield an estimate of the total number of U.S. jobs producing

for export. Comparing the number of workers producing for

export across years yields an estimate of job ``gains'' from

exports over time. These job gain estimates could provide an

important context for estimates of job losses and are

necessary to provide a full assessment of the effects of

offshore outsourcing.

Some updating of the model used to prepare the job gains

from trade estimates would likely be required in order to

produce these data on an annual basis.

Recommendation 5: Link BEA and BLS Data Sets

The Department of Commerce-Bureau of Economic Analysis and

the Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics should be

required to link their data sets, which could provide

synergies. BEA could link its data on multinational

corporations with relevant BLS data--including occupational

data and movement of work data in the Extended Mass Layoff

Survey. Both BEA and BLS would be required to be transparent

regarding their data collection methodologies. While there

may be some value in sharing data and identifying greater

detail on wages, occupation and skill level of jobs going

overseas, there is no certainty that providing these data

links will improve the quality of data on offshore

outsourcing. Such data linkages may be more valuable after

BEA and BLS improve their individual agency's data collection

on offshore outsourcing, by implementing the recommendations

in this report and any other suggestions to be developed.

However, data linkages could provide important additional

perspectives.

Excerpt 4, Conclusion

If all of these legislative recommendations are followed,

Congress would have available more accurate data on the

phenomenon of offshore outsourcing. This could include better

estimates of how many jobs--both goods-producing jobs and

services producing jobs--are being outsourced to other

countries. From the Trade Adjustment Assistance database,

that would be equivalent to the data available between 1994

and 2002 under NAFTA. Data would be available for the United

States as a whole and by State, on how many jobs were being

``lost'' by industry, by city, by cause (imports or

production shifts), and by country to which jobs were being

transferred. Congress would also have available estimates on

U.S. jobs ``created'' to balance jobs lost to offshore

outsourcing. These new jobs would represent U.S. jobs

supporting new exports and U.S. jobs supported by new foreign

direct investment in the United States.

These data, providing U.S. government estimates of the

magnitude of job ``losses'' from offshore outsourcing and

counterbalancing job ``gains'' from new exports and foreign

direct investment in the United States, could assist Congress

in making a variety of informed policy decisions. In a

narrower sense, these policy decisions would help displaced

workers become employed in new jobs or help critical U.S.

industries maintain a presence in the United States. In a

broader sense, the data would help Congress make more

informed decisions which could affect both the short-range

and long-term economic health and welfare of the United

States, its industries, and its citizens.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Service Workers Fairness Act to provide aid for American workers facing a disturbing new trend: the offshore outsourcing of service jobs.

Congress first established Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) in 1962, in recognition that international trade can harm our workers. The program was overhauled in 1974, and since then, it has offered extended unemployment compensation benefits and job training for workers who lose their manufacturing jobs due to import competition.

Over the past decade, Congress has shown its willingness to adapt to increasing globalization by modernizing TAA. For example, in 1993, with the adoption of the North American Free Trade Agreement, we added a provision to offer those same unemployment and job training benefits to workers whose manufacturing jobs were relocated to Canada or Mexico. Most recently, when the program was reauthorized in 2002, we expanded eligibility once again. The program now includes workers whose manufacturing jobs have been relocated to certain countries other than Canada or Mexico. It also now provides assistance to certain secondary workers who have lost their manufacturing jobs as suppliers or downstream producers to firms that have been affected by trade or plant relocation.

Despite these changes, one factor has remained constant: Trade Adjustment Assistance is only available to workers in the manufacturing sector. If a service sector employee's job has been outsourced to a foreign country, he or she is not eligible for TAA because the performance of services is not considered production of an ``article,'' as required by the law.

I can understand why the law was written that way--until recently, we believed that our service jobs were not put at risk by international trade. But now, unfortunately, we know this is no longer the case. Hundreds of thousands of service sector jobs already have been outsourced to other countries, including China and India. A report by Forrester Research predicts that 3.3 million service jobs will be outsourced by the year 2015--and some economists believe that forecast is conservative. Last fall, the Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics at the University of California, Berkeley, estimated that more than 14 million service jobs are ``at risk to outsourcing''--that is 11 percent of all jobs.

That is the outer limit of service jobs at risk, but it demonstrates that this issue will reach far beyond the software programmers and call centers that are receiving attention today. The Fisher Center report notes that the jobs being created in India and elsewhere also include the following service sectors: geographic information systems services for insurance companies; stock market research for financial firms; medical transcription services; legal online database research; data analysis for consulting firms; and payroll and other back-office related activities.

In fact, the offshore outsourcing of service jobs likely will grow at a much

faster rate than the manufacturing outsourcing we have witnessed over the past two decades because there is an enormous cost differential in the wages of well-educated workers here and abroad. For example, the hourly wage for telephone operators in the United States is $12.57, while it is less than $1.00 in India. The hourly wage for legal assistants and paralegals in the United States is $17.86, compared to $6.00 to $8.00 in India. Accountants in the United States earn $23.35 per hour, while those in India earn $6.00 to $15.00 per hour. Finally, financial researchers and analysts in the United States earn $33.00 to $35.00 per hour, while those in India earn only $6.00 to $15.00 per hour.

The offshore outsourcing of service jobs already is having an impact on our economy. For example, it may be one reason that the recent increase in the unemployment rate is larger for highly-educated workers. From 2000 to 2003, total unemployment for workers with at least a bachelor's degree increased by 95 percent, compared to a 40 percent increase for workers with a high school diploma or less. Statistics for long-term unemployment--representing workers who have been unemployed for more than six months--are similar. From 2000 to 2003, long term unemployment for workers with at least a bachelor's degree increased by 299 percent, compared to an increase of 156 percent for workers with a high school diploma or less.

The offshore outsourcing of service jobs also may help explain why the few jobs that have been created since the recession officially ended in November 2001 have been primarily in low-paying sectors.

The question before us today is: How should Congress respond to this new facet of globalization and how can we aid these hundreds of thousands--and eventually millions--of service workers whose jobs have been outsourced?

Although there are broader trade issues that we should examine over time, there is one thing we can and should do now, and that is extend Trade Adjustment Assistance to these service employees. The service- providing sector provides more than 86 million jobs and accounts for more than half of our total GDP. We must extend the same helping hand to these men and women when their jobs are outsourced as we do to workers in the manufacturing sector.

Trade Adjustment Assistance not only provides additional unemployment compensation benefits. Just as importantly, it provides training to help workers find jobs at a similar or higher skill level, including classroom training, on-the-job training, and customized employer-based training. TAA also provides reemployment services, including employment counseling, case assessment, job development, and supportive services.

The bill I am introducing today, the Service Workers Fairness Act, would provide TAA eligibility to laid-off service workers whose firm shifts the work for the same or directly competitive services to a foreign country. It also would cover contract service workers whose contracts have been shifted overseas. Finally, my bill would extend the current provisions for adversely affected secondary workers to those who provide services.

Last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan noted that ``rigorous education and ongoing training'' are critical in ensuring that as many Americans as possible can benefit from increased globalization.

My bill would provide this education and training to service workers whose jobs are outsourced abroad. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Service Workers Fairness Act to provide aid for American workers facing a disturbing new trend: the offshore outsourcing of service jobs.

Congress first established Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) in 1962, in recognition that international trade can harm our workers. The program was overhauled in 1974, and since then, it has offered extended unemployment compensation benefits and job training for workers who lose their manufacturing jobs due to import competition.

Over the past decade, Congress has shown its willingness to adapt to increasing globalization by modernizing TAA. For example, in 1993, with the adoption of the North American Free Trade Agreement, we added a provision to offer those same unemployment and job training benefits to workers whose manufacturing jobs were relocated to Canada or Mexico. Most recently, when the program was reauthorized in 2002, we expanded eligibility once again. The program now includes workers whose manufacturing jobs have been relocated to certain countries other than Canada or Mexico. It also now provides assistance to certain secondary workers who have lost their manufacturing jobs as suppliers or downstream producers to firms that have been affected by trade or plant relocation.

Despite these changes, one factor has remained constant: Trade Adjustment Assistance is only available to workers in the manufacturing sector. If a service sector employee's job has been outsourced to a foreign country, he or she is not eligible for TAA because the performance of services is not considered production of an ``article,'' as required by the law.

I can understand why the law was written that way--until recently, we believed that our service jobs were not put at risk by international trade. But now, unfortunately, we know this is no longer the case. Hundreds of thousands of service sector jobs already have been outsourced to other countries, including China and India. A report by Forrester Research predicts that 3.3 million service jobs will be outsourced by the year 2015--and some economists believe that forecast is conservative. Last fall, the Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics at the University of California, Berkeley, estimated that more than 14 million service jobs are ``at risk to outsourcing''--that is 11 percent of all jobs.

That is the outer limit of service jobs at risk, but it demonstrates that this issue will reach far beyond the software programmers and call centers that are receiving attention today. The Fisher Center report notes that the jobs being created in India and elsewhere also include the following service sectors: geographic information systems services for insurance companies; stock market research for financial firms; medical transcription services; legal online database research; data analysis for consulting firms; and payroll and other back-office related activities.

In fact, the offshore outsourcing of service jobs likely will grow at a much

faster rate than the manufacturing outsourcing we have witnessed over the past two decades because there is an enormous cost differential in the wages of well-educated workers here and abroad. For example, the hourly wage for telephone operators in the United States is $12.57, while it is less than $1.00 in India. The hourly wage for legal assistants and paralegals in the United States is $17.86, compared to $6.00 to $8.00 in India. Accountants in the United States earn $23.35 per hour, while those in India earn $6.00 to $15.00 per hour. Finally, financial researchers and analysts in the United States earn $33.00 to $35.00 per hour, while those in India earn only $6.00 to $15.00 per hour.

The offshore outsourcing of service jobs already is having an impact on our economy. For example, it may be one reason that the recent increase in the unemployment rate is larger for highly-educated workers. From 2000 to 2003, total unemployment for workers with at least a bachelor's degree increased by 95 percent, compared to a 40 percent increase for workers with a high school diploma or less. Statistics for long-term unemployment--representing workers who have been unemployed for more than six months--are similar. From 2000 to 2003, long term unemployment for workers with at least a bachelor's degree increased by 299 percent, compared to an increase of 156 percent for workers with a high school diploma or less.

The offshore outsourcing of service jobs also may help explain why the few jobs that have been created since the recession officially ended in November 2001 have been primarily in low-paying sectors.

The question before us today is: How should Congress respond to this new facet of globalization and how can we aid these hundreds of thousands--and eventually millions--of service workers whose jobs have been outsourced?

Although there are broader trade issues that we should examine over time, there is one thing we can and should do now, and that is extend Trade Adjustment Assistance to these service employees. The service- providing sector provides more than 86 million jobs and accounts for more than half of our total GDP. We must extend the same helping hand to these men and women when their jobs are outsourced as we do to workers in the manufacturing sector.

Trade Adjustment Assistance not only provides additional unemployment compensation benefits. Just as importantly, it provides training to help workers find jobs at a similar or higher skill level, including classroom training, on-the-job training, and customized employer-based training. TAA also provides reemployment services, including employment counseling, case assessment, job development, and supportive services.

The bill I am introducing today, the Service Workers Fairness Act, would provide TAA eligibility to laid-off service workers whose firm shifts the work for the same or directly competitive services to a foreign country. It also would cover contract service workers whose contracts have been shifted overseas. Finally, my bill would extend the current provisions for adversely affected secondary workers to those who provide services.

Last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan noted that ``rigorous education and ongoing training'' are critical in ensuring that as many Americans as possible can benefit from increased globalization.

My bill would provide this education and training to service workers whose jobs are outsourced abroad. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to reauthorize the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route on behalf of myself and Senator Corzine. This bill makes a number of important changes to legislation that was enacted in 1988 and reauthorized in 1994 and 1999.

The original legislation, which I co-sponsored, called for a route that links nationally significant natural and cultural sites associated with the coastal area of New Jersey. The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail runs south for nearly 300 miles from Perth Amboy along the Atlantic Ocean to Cape May, then west along the Delaware Bay to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Along the way are sites like the Barnegat Bay Decoy and Baymen's Museum, the Cape May Migratory Bird Refuge, and the Sandy Hook Unit of the Gateway National Recreation Area.

Five theme trails, of which three are open, are planned to showcase different aspects of New Jersey coastal life: maritime history, coastal habitats, wildlife migration, historic settlements, and relaxation/ inspiration. The Trail is operated by a partnership that includes the National Park Service, the State of New Jersey, local communities, and private non-profit organizations. Fifty percent of the funding for the Trail is provided from non-federal funds.

My legislation raises the funding authorization for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail to $8 million, doubling the current authorization of $4 million. The legislation also: extends the deadline for project completion by 5 years to May 4, 2009; allows funds to be used for grants in addition to technical assistance; and requires the National Park Service to prepare a strategic plan for the long-term maintenance of this coastal route. A companion bill, H.R. 3070, has been introduced in the House by Congressman LoBiondo, with cosponsorship by the entire New Jersey delegation.

New Jersey has a long shoreline of which we are extremely proud. This bill will provide the necessary resources and strategic planning to ensure that the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail fulfills its promise to the people of my home State and to visitors from around the world. The additional funding authorized in this bill will support: 1. Creation of a long-term strategic plan on the roles of the National Park Service and other Trail partners; 2. Development of two remaining theme trails (historic settlements and relaxation/inspiration); 3. Development of interpretive media such as videos, brochures and exhibits; 4. Technical assistance for the State park system, wildlife management, and historic and cultural sites; 5. Construction of a New Jersey State Park Service facility on the trail at Double Trouble State Park in the Barnegat Bay Region; 6. Continuing work on a welcome center at Sandy Hook; and 7. Construction of a welcome center in the Absecon region.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which is needed to assure that funding for this valuable undertaking will continue to be authorized after May 2004.

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

Mr. President, every year, Americans commemorate the birthday of America's greatest civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Last year I was pleased to introduce legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to recognize Dr. King's contribution to the people of the United States. Revenues from the surcharge on the coin would go to the Library of Congress to purchase and maintain historical documents and other materials associated with the life and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.

I had hoped that this bill could have been enacted last year on the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech, but we were unable to do so. Today, I would like to reintroduce the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Commemorative Coin Act of 2004, to have the coin minted in 2009 in commemoration of the 80th anniversary of Dr. King's birth. Dr. King's significant contributions and his message should live on for future generations. America should remember him as a national hero and a pioneer.

In recognizing Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy, it is important that we continue to learn from his actions and words. When I was a young girl in Louisiana, I learned from Dr. King that the struggle for civil rights and racial equality was more than simply changing the law, it required changing our hearts as well. Dr. King recognized that the civil rights movement presented Americans with a choice. We could choose hate and fear, or we could choose love and understanding. Dr. King believed that when Americans choose love in their hearts, peace and equality would follow. Dr. King offered us a peaceful way to reach equality through non-violent protest and action. I believe that this should continue to be a fundamental moral challenge for our country. In his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. King said, ``I have a dream that one day, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.''

I would also like to take the time to thank my good friends on both sides of the aisle for supporting this important legislation. I urge others to join us in remembering the selfless deeds of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., by cosponsoring this bill.