Trade Adjustment Assistance Equity for Service Workers Act of 2004

Mr. President, actually we are debating the JOBS bill right now. There is a lot of conversation that takes us in another direction. I suspect that is for a very specific purpose--actually to get into Presidential elections. What we ought to be concentrating on is making sure there are jobs in this country. Some of those jobs are at stake right now because the WTO said we violated international law and they placed a 5-percent penalty on companies from the United States, and that penalty grows at 1 percent a month.

While we delay on this bill, the price is going up for American business, and when business declines, the jobs decline. Perhaps that is a point one side would like to make. Maybe that is what they want to have happen. I don't want jobs to decline. I don't care who is President or what the race is. It is very important we get jobs.

Part of the discussion we have entered into under this JOBS bill has been one about the overtime rule the Secretary of Labor has published. We have heard a lot of comments about overtime from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I want people to know the rest of the story. I want people to be aware of the smokescreen that covers election year politics with misleading rhetoric about overtime pay. It is time to strip rhetoric from reality, look through the smokescreen, and see who is really helped and hurt by Senator Harkin's attempt to block the Department of Labor from updating the rules governing overtime eligibility for white-collar workers. That is right, the word is ``updating.'' The Department was told by GAO the rule needed to be updated. The rule was outdated. The rule referred to things people cannot possibly comply with because nobody knows what they are anymore. It is confusing as well.

The Senator from Iowa has proposed keeping the trial lawyers' dream. He wants to keep the gray area in the bill as an addition to the rule. Yes. There is a gray area. I can tell you this mostly affects small businesses. I can tell you small businesses realize it is going to cost them about $375 million a year in overtime. I don't know how we can talk about a decrease in overtime when it costs them $375 million more in overtime, but to have the gray area cleared up they are willing to do that. Why are they willing to do that? Because right now that $375 million potential is for lawyers' fees to decide gray areas. Who needs that? We would rather put the money in the workers' pockets.

This clarifies who gets overtime, but it clarifies it more broadly than anything we have ever done before. Do you know right now the only people who know for sure they will get overtime are those who make less than $8,060 a year? Yes. If you earn over $8,060 a year, you move into this gray area where you may have to hire an attorney to help you figure out whether you get overtime. The small businesses have to do that.

This rule the Department of Labor has issued is going to raise that $8,060 to $23,660--pretty much triple the amount. It is long overdue. It needs to be done, and it was willing to be done from the very beginning.

The Department also put in there that white-collar workers earning over $65,000 were not assured of overtime. They listened to 75,000 comments and said, We picked the wrong number. It should be over $100,000.

You notice I mentioned white-collar workers. Blue-collar workers are exempt and assured of the overtime. It doesn't have the $100,000 limit on it.

Another thing that disturbs me about the debate we are having is the implication that without a rule, without a law, there would be no overtime. I want you to know there are businesses--particularly small businesses--out there that are not only paying overtime for some special tasks, but they are paying double time and triple time to be sure they have the workers they need to do the job.

There needs to be a rule. The rule needs to be one that is newer than the 50-year-old one so we can understand the jobs that are being talked about.

Last March, the Department solicited public comments on a proposal to update these regulations. They received more than 75,000 comments on the proposal. I happen to believe public comment plays a critical role in the regulatory process. We want the public to comment on any new rule being written. We then want the Department to review these comments and to respond to them. That is how the process is supposed to work. This is the regulatory process Americans expect and deserve. I have seen times before when agencies did not pay attention. Then it became critical for us to do something. That is not the case in this instance. They listened to the 75,000 comments that were sent in writing. It is obvious they listened to the comments on this floor, and they made those revisions in the rule before they published the final rule. The Department of Labor carefully considered those 75,000 comments. They listened to the concerns of the American people, and then they did the final overtime rule and they made substantial changes to the proposal.

I have my own concerns with the proposed rule. In fact, I wrote a letter to Secretary Chao, along with Senator Collins, asking the Department to pay particular attention to protecting the overtime status of public safety officers, veterans, and nurses.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we asked the final rule clearly ensure the overtime rights of these workers would not

be restricted. I am very pleased the Department made the changes to clearly reflect the overtime rights of public safety officers, veterans, and nurses would not be restricted.

Let me highlight some of changes that were made in the final rule to better protect the overtime rights of workers and many others.

The final rule states first responders such as police, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians are eligible for overtime pay. No question; no gray area, it clears it up.

The reference to training in the Armed Forces has been deleted and clarifies that veteran status does not affect overtime. The veterans will get their overtime regardless of the training received in the armed services.

The final rule also states licensed practical nurses do not qualify as exempt learned professionals and are therefore eligible for overtime pay.

The final rule retains previous law regarding registered nurses which assures them of overtime.

The final rule provides blue-collar workers are eligible for overtime pay.

To be considered exempt from overtime, the salary level for highly compensated employees is the final rule which has been increased from $65,000 to $100,000.

The final rule clarifies the contractual obligation under collective bargaining agreements is not affected.

The final rule maintains the previous law requirement that exempt administrative employees must exercise discretion and independent judgment.

The final rule clarifies there is no change to current law regarding the educational requirement for the professional exemption.

Significant changes were made to address the concerns raised about the proposed rule. This is exactly how the public comment period is designed to work and exactly how it did work in this situation. The regulatory process worked, and we have a final rule that is better for both workers and employers.

Again, we are talking about the small businessmen who do not have time to go through a lot of this or have the ability to hire attorneys to figure these things out. We need to keep it simple and understandable. The rule does that.

Before the final rule was published, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stood in the Senate and blasted the proposed rule on the very issues that the final rule corrects. The Senator from Iowa still wants to block the Department of Labor from updating the rules governing overtime pay for white collar employees. This would, in effect, tell the American people that the public's role in the regulatory process means nothing. This would say those 75,000 comments mean nothing. This would leave complex and confusing rules that have not been significantly changed in 50 years. We owe all our constituents more than that.

When I am back in Wyoming, I like to hold town meetings to find out what is on the minds of my constituents. At each town meeting there is usually someone in attendance quite concerned about government regulations. I am often told to rein in big government and keep rules simple, keep them current, keep them responsive, keep them understandable for small business, and make sure they make sense in today's ever-changing workplace.

My colleague on the other side of the aisle would take the opposite approach. Instead of keeping it simple and current, he wants to keep all of the gray areas from before and impose them on a second set of regulations. That is what we need--multiple sets of regulations; now a misunderstandable set with a new set imposed on it, protecting the old set so the trial attorneys' dream still exists. He wants to prohibit the Secretary of Labor from updating the outdated rules regarding white collar employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime requirements. Simply put, it is an attempt to reject the new, turn back the clock, and look to yesterday for the answers to tomorrow's problems. The amendment keeps the confusion. It is an approach that is doomed to failure. I am opposed to it.

There is no question the workplace has dramatically changed during the last half century. The regulations governing white collar exemptions, however, remain substantially the same as they were 50 years ago. The existing rule takes us back to the time when workers held titles such as straw boss, keypunch operator, leg man, and other occupations that no longer exist today. Our economy has evolved. New occupations have emerged that were not contemplated when the regulations were written. A 1999 study by the General Accounting Office, GAO, recommended that the Department of Labor comprehensively review current regulations and restructure white collar exemptions to better accommodate today's workplace and to anticipate future workplace trends. This is precisely what the Labor Department has done.

What will Senator Harkin's effort to block the final rule do? It will set the clock back to 1954 and try to force a square peg--the 21st century jobs--in the round hole of the workplace 50 years ago. Worse, it keeps the gray areas of the past rule instead of clarifying. This obstruction will undermine the Department of Labor efforts to extend overtime protection to an additional 1.3 million low-wage workers. Under the old rule, only those workers earning less than $8,060 a year are automatically protected for overtime pay. The Department's new rule will raise this threshold to $23,660 a year. The final rule provides lower income workers with the protection they deserve.

By undermining the Department's efforts to better protect lower income workers, who is this amendment going to protect? The Department determined that few, if any, employees earning between $23,660 and $100,000 will lose their overtime pay under the new rule. The Department estimates that 107,000 employees who are earning over $100,000 could--could but not necessarily would--lose their overtime. Could our colleagues be willing to deny overtime pay for an additional 1.3 million low-wage workers in order to protect the overtime for the 107,000 workers earning above $100,000? Is Congress going to undermine the purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is to protect low- wage workers?

The Senator from Iowa and his effort to block the final overtime rule will not protect first responders, veterans, blue collar workers, or nurses. The final rule has been improved to clearly protect the overtime rights of these workers. Therefore, the opponents of updating and clarifying the white collar overtime rule had to come up with new objections. No lawsuits necessary, it is very clear. That is what the Department intends.

On April 13, the AFL-CIO released and began soliciting contributions for a political TV ad attacking the Department of Labor final overtime rule. Here is what is interesting about that: That attack came a week before the final rule was publicly available, before they knew what was in it. Such tactics suggest a greater interest in playing election year politics than in protecting workers.

Let me respond to some misleading claims about the final rule. Some have claimed that team leaders will lose overtime pay under the final rule. In fact, the new rule will guarantee overtime protection for blue collar team leaders and is more protective of overtime pay for white collar team leaders. Furthermore, there is no change to current law regarding the overtime status of computer employees, financial services employees, journalists, insurance claims directors, funeral directors, athletic trainers, nursery schoolteachers, or chefs.

It is time to get beyond the election year rhetoric and misleading information about who is supposedly harmed by the Department's new overtime requirements; therefore, I am supporting the amendment offered by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire to require the final overtime requirements to safeguard the overtime rights of workers earning less than $23,660 and certain categories of workers that some erroneously claim would lose overtime rights. His amendment very specifically names those and assures those rights. It is in the rule as well. I am confident the final regulations published by the Department of Labor on April 23 already do that, too.

The Gregg amendment serves to make it clear that it is the intent of Congress to ensure that the overtime rights of 55 listed occupations and job classifications are not weakened. These occupations and job classifications include the team leaders, registered nurses, the licensed practical nurses, oil and gas workers, refinery workers,

steelworkers, shipyard workers, journalists, firefighters, police officers, nursery schoolteachers, and financial services workers, to name a few.

The Harkin amendment effectively blocks the Department from extending overtime pay to low-wage workers and updating confusing overtime requirements. In contrast to the Harkin amendment, the Gregg amendment does not undermine the Department of Labor efforts to update and clarify the overtime requirements and extend overtime protection to 1.3 million low-wage workers and clear up these gray areas that just help the attorneys. The amendment offered by Senator Gregg will ensure that the overtime rights are guaranteed to those 1.3 million low-wage workers, strengthened for another 5.4 million workers, and clarified for all workers and employers.

The antiquated and confusing white collar exemptions have created a windfall for trial lawyers. Ambiguities and outdated terms have generated significant confusion regarding which employees are exempt from overtime requirements. The confusion has generated significant litigation and overtime pay awards for highly paid white collar employees. Wage and hour cases--this is important--now exceed discrimination suits as the leading type of employment law class action. The amendment assures those gray areas will stay, causing court action right now. The new rule clarifies and requires these areas be cleared up, but more clearly states the people who will absolutely get overtime. It states who will be entitled now. It protects the workers and puts the money in the workers' pocket, not in legal action. If these rules are clear, employers will know when they are complying with the law. This is important, particularly and especially for small business. That is for whom I always make my pleas.

Small businesses are the only ones being punished by the rules. They don't have the specialists to determine the gray areas. So they wind up in court having to solve the gray areas after the fact. It is much better to solve it before the fact. We have to worry about small businesses which should not have to rely on lawyers or accountants to tell them how to pay their employees.

The Department of Labor has estimated these new regulations are going to cost employers an additional $275 million on an annual basis. However, the new overtime rule will provide much needed clarity.

As a former small business owner, I know employers want to be able to pay their workers, not their lawyers. The Harkin blocking amendment would only add to the current state of confusion. Instead of preserving overtime rights, which the Harkin amendment purports to do, it will create even more complexity and litigation, piling rule on rule.

The blocking amendment creates a two-tiered scheme which would require two different tests to determine a worker's overtime status. The present gray area and the other one would have to be worked to be combined. So anything that would have been a gray area before will still be a gray area. It will freeze workers in jobs they have outgrown. The blocking amendment will mire the final overtime regulation in years of litigation, likely preventing them from ever taking effect.

The only clear winners for the effort to block the new rule will be the trial lawyers who will benefit from a continued state of confusion. Most people would prefer to live in a different state than that. We are spending taxpayer dollars sorting through cases that could be solved with clarity.

Under the blocking amendment, workers will still have to wait years for a court to act before they could receive the overtime pay they deserve. Why should the United States stand in between workers and their overtime pay? We need to defeat the blocking amendment that would block the final rules from taking effect. We need to ensure that American workers deserving of overtime pay will see their hard work reflected in their paychecks, not in litigation.

Today's Washington Post editorial urges lawmakers to hold off blocking the new overtime rules from taking effect. I ask unanimous consent to print the editorial in the Record.

The Washington Post states:

What's needed now is not to block these regulations but to

ensure that they are vigorously enforced with an eye to

protect the vulnerable workers the law was intended to

benefit.

I urge my colleagues to support the Gregg amendment which will allow the Department of Labor to provide clearer and fairer overtime rights for workers. I also urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Harkin's reform blocking amendment which will only line the pockets of the trial lawyers.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, before we vote, I have an unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that the Collins amendment, No. 3108, be modified with the changes that are at the desk and that the amendment be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; further, I ask that there then be 45 minutes of debate in relationship to the Wyden amendment, No. 3109, with 15 minutes under the control of Senator Wyden and 30 minutes under the control of the chairman or his designee; further, I ask consent that following that time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relationship to the amendment, with no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote; finally, I ask consent that following that vote, Senator Allen be recognized to offer an amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that once Senator Allen offers his amendment with respect to home mortgages, it be set aside only for the purpose of Senator Cantwell offering an amendment, and that after the clerk reports the amendment by number, it be immediately set aside, and the Senate resume consideration of the Allen amendment.

Yes.

Amendment No. 3114

Mr. President, I ask the Chair to alert me after I have used up 15 minutes.

First of all, I hope the proponents of this amendment know that as a conferee 2 years ago when health benefits were added to trade adjustment assistance, I was a conferee and I worked to make sure these health benefits were included. We have a program before us adopted 2 years ago but operational for about no more than 9 months. Now what we are doing is we are being asked to make a dramatic expansion of these programs with only 9 months' experience.

It seems to me to be a little bit early to be making these sorts of changes in a program that was a fundamental change in trade adjustment assistance 2 years ago. But of course it was a reasonable change to make because we are always trying to find ways to help people who previously had health insurance, who are unemployed through no fault of their own. We did that through the trade adjustment assistance expansion before.

I would like to respond to the first point made by the Senator from Oregon, and that is about the letter from BlueCross BlueShield Association that they have sent to all Members of the Senate voicing their concerns about this very dramatic expansion. I want to make it clear that it is legitimate for them to raise their concerns because it is their members, the Blues, who have stepped up to the plate to serve those eligible for the credit. They are the ones out there serving the public the way Congress intended. So if they have some concerns that they are just 9 months into a program and having a very dramatic change in the program, yes, wouldn't you expect them to voice some concerns?

In addition, though, to the BlueCross BlueShield Association, I have had expressed to me--not in letter form, but I hope my colleagues will take this into consideration in voting--I have had expressed concerns about this amendment from the America's Health Insurance Plans and the National Association of Health Underwriters as well.

I have to say I reluctantly oppose this amendment. I was hoping we would be able to work out further bipartisan agreement behind this amendment than what has come out. While I am not opposed in general to making some service workers eligible for trade adjustment assistance and to making improvements to the Trade Act health tax credit, this amendment goes too far too soon. I had hoped we could reach a more bipartisan compromise on TAA for service workers, and I am extremely disappointed that we could not do that.

This amendment started out with a few pages as a simple and straightforward idea to extend trade adjustment assistance to low- skilled service workers who might be displaced by trade. The original bill, S. 2157, reflected that idea. That idea appealed to me, I say to the Senator from Oregon, and it is certainly something that merits serious consideration today. Yet at some point that idea mutated to something much more than adding service workers to the existing trade adjustment assistance plus the health benefits expansion we adopted 2 years ago.

The original Baucus bill, S. 2157, was 10 pages long. In short, by just the number of pages, it was a limited approach but good in substance. This amendment, which purports to do the same thing as the Baucus bill, is, in fact, 57 pages long. Clearly it does not require 57 pages of legislation to extend trade adjustment assistance to service workers. So what happened? How did 10 pages grow to 57 pages? The answer is quite simple. In the guise of extending trade adjustment assistance to service workers, the amendment makes numerous and fundamental changes to the current Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. These changes go so far that I feel the very fabric of trade adjustment assistance for workers is at risk.

I will put the changes in context. Just 2 years ago Senator Baucus and I worked together in a bipartisan way to expand and reform trade adjustment assistance. We accomplished this through the Trade Act of 2002. In doing so, we nearly doubled the program and took the unprecedented step of extending trade adjustment assistance to a whole new class of workers called secondary workers. Secondary workers are those whose job loss might not be directly related to imports, so it was a major expansion.

We also made a number of other changes to the program, including consolidating trade adjustment assistance programs, increasing the funding cap for training, increasing the job search allowance, establishing a new unprecedented wage insurance program for older workers, and establishing a new Federal health subsidy, a health tax credit to help dislocated workers and pension recipients get health coverage.

Now, with these new programs barely up and running, some of them just 9 months, supporters of this amendment want to stretch trade adjustment assistance even further, expanding the program to a whole new loosely defined class of service workers and changing the tax credit in various ways. I am afraid that trade adjustment assistance for workers is being stretched to the breaking point.

The definitions being proposed could provide 2 years of income support, health and training benefits to service professionals, including attorneys, accountants, engineers, as well as business consultants and advertising agents.

Allowing upper-class highly skilled professionals access to trade adjustment assistance does not make sense. In fact, this could actually hurt the program by seriously slowing the provisions of assisting services and benefits for lower skilled manufacturing workers who truly need skills training under trade adjustment assistance.

Can you visualize a lawyer or an accountant with their job loss associated to trade adjustment assistance going back and learning some new skill after they have been through law school? I don't think so.

But perhaps what is even more troubling is the number of fundamental and permanent changes that are being made to trade adjustment assistance in the guise of extending the program to service workers.

I would like to give you some examples. The amendment expands the definition of downstream products to include testing as well as finishing operations. The amendment creates a special eligibility rule for producers of taconite pellets. It includes a special retroactive rule for producers of taconite pellets to November 4, 2002. It doubles the authorization for training benefits to $440 million annually. It lowers the age for workers eligible to participate in the Wage Insurance Program, basically a wage subsidy for older workers, from 50 years and older, to 40 years and older.

Let's look at that. Originally, we wanted to help people who were maybe too old to get some job retraining to move into another industry. Generally, that is 50 years and up. But are you going to offer this wage insurance to people who are 40 years old and have 25 more years to work where the benefit of job retraining is a worthwhile investment? This amendment does that.

It establishes a whole new trade adjustment assistance program for communities. It completely reorganizes the trade adjustment assistance for firms by establishing an Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance within the Department of Commerce. It adds a new class

of firms--service firms--eligible for benefits under the program. It further relaxes current eligibility criteria for manufacturing workers deemed eligible for trade adjustment assistance. It requires the Secretary of Labor to establish a new performance measuring system as well as a number of other new data collection projects.

The program may be pushed to the breaking point.

That is the third time I have said it.

We have a program that was expanded 2 years ago getting underway 9 months ago. Here we are doing all these things I just mentioned, and doing it on a bill that is meant to create jobs in industry. We are holding up a bill that should have been passed 3 months ago to get jobs in manufacturing.

If this weren't enough, the amendment would change the health tax credit.

Again, because that program is young, the advanceable credit has only been running for 9 months. We do not know what issues may need to be addressed or the best ways to address them.

When is it going to reach the point around here when we pass a law in one Congress, it is in operation one day, and we start changing it? When is enough enough? Or when, at least, is enough enough for a while?

Yet here we have an amendment that claims to have some sort of definitive solutions.

Changing the rules in a piecemeal fashion, especially now in the early stages, will be unsettling for those at the Federal and State levels who, along with private insurers, are working diligently to get their tax credit off the ground.

By accepting this amendment, we would be sending them a loud and clear message: Thanks for all your hard work, but we are going to change the ground rules. By the way, do not be surprised if we come back tomorrow and tell you later that because we have better, more complete information, these changes being made and suggested today aren't somehow the right changes. So we are going to give you more.

That information will be coming in the very near term.

The General Accounting Office will issue a report in early fall on the health tax credit. I plan to hold a hearing in the Finance Committee to discuss the General Accounting Office's findings and recommendations. Treasury also has survey work underway. It will be important for us to judge the progress of this new program that was adopted just 2 years ago and which has been in effect for 9 months.

These reports--when we get them--will better inform efforts to improve the health tax credit at the right time with some information that is worthwhile so we can make a judgment that we will use the taxpayers' money wisely.

Now is not the time. This amendment will destabilize the Trade Act tax credit and undermine the availability of affordable coverage choices for people eligible for that credit--the exact opposite outcome that anyone would want.

A number of Blue Cross-Blue Shield association members cover those who receive the credit. They wrote:

This represents a major and problematic change in a program

that has been operational for less than one year.

They go on to say:

Many Blue Plans would be forced to reconsider offering

their products if this amendment passed placing at risk the

coverage of many TAA eligibles.

Some would say that is a threat coming from somebody who is just looking out for Members in this body who oppose your amendment. But you ought to give some consideration, it seems to me, to people who are offering a service. When we passed this bill 2 years ago, we didn't know we would be prepared to do it, but people have stepped up to the plate.

Let us be clear about what is at stake. If we weaken the effectiveness of the Trade Adjustment Program for manufacturing workers, public support for that program will be lost and truly trade- impacted workers may be hurt.

If we expand the Trade Adjustment Program and change the health tax credit in a less than a thoughtful and deliberate manner, we could jeopardize programs for current beneficiaries.

We should make sure proposals to further expand trade adjustment assistance and to change the health tax credit are done in a fiscally prudent way and that any changes made will work in practice. In other words, approach this the same way that Senator Baucus and I did 2 years ago when we got into the program.

What we have in this amendment is a bunch of ideas with no coherent direction except being bigger and bigger, more and more, and higher and higher.

Such an approach surely is good politics, but it certainly can result in bad policy. I figure that good policy is the best politics. I am afraid that is what we have in this amendment--bad policy.

The price tag for all of these special rules, retroactively, and new benefits, comes to about a $5.3 billion price tag. Where I come from that is a lot of money. I think we have an obligation to make sure it is spent wisely.

While well-intentioned, this amendment goes too far. It could weaken the current program, and it could put the recently enacted health tax credit at risk.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 30 seconds, one to correct and one for thoughtful reaction.

The thoughtful reaction is this: When a new program has been in effect for only 9 months, is it unusual that only 5 percent of the people would take part in it? No, they are learning about it. They are going to get involved over a period of time. Only 5 percent in 9 months.

Second, as to the Business Roundtable supporting this amendment, I know the Business Roundtable has called some of the offices of various sponsors of this bill to tell them to quit saying the Business Roundtable supports this amendment.

I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma whatever time he may consume.

Mr. President, I just spoke for 30 seconds to get in the point that the Business Roundtable had called the offices of the various sponsors of this amendment saying that the Business Roundtable does not support this amendment. We were also told by the authors that the Information Technology Industry Council supported the amendment. I have had contact, through staff, with a Joe Pasetti of the Information Technology Industry Council, who made it clear they have not taken a position on the Wyden amendment. I think it would be incorrect to quote them as saying they support this amendment.

There are a couple of points I want to make about the points the proponents have made. The proponents, in opening debate, were concerned about the affordability of coverage. Yet their changes will make coverage less affordable. The amendment creates a back door exception to a requirement to have 3 months of coverage. This requirement is consistent with HIPAA standards and was agreed to when we adopted this original expansion of TAA in August 2002.

The changes to the rule will require health insurers to offer coverage to higher risk individuals. Health insurers, like the BlueCross BlueShield plans, will either have to increase premiums or not offer coverage. I have said many times that you ought to be concerned about affordability. The authors of the amendment say they are concerned about affordability, but the amendment will make coverage more unaffordable. Fewer people will be able to use the credit.

Proponents of the amendment also have made the claim that I have referred to before where they said only 5 percent of the people are making use of this new program. Well, what do you expect after just 9 months being operational--just 9 months before the massive expansion of this program? But they refer to this 5 percent. They would make it broader and say we have a low uptake rate and that this signals failure of the program we adopted 2 years ago, which is now just being undertaken for 9 months.

Let me repeat that this program is a very young program. The enrollment numbers only reflect those who have signed up for the advanceable credit. The numbers don't include dependents. The numbers don't include people who claim the credit on their yearend return. We would not even know that yet. Treasury is trying to analyze that data of the people who claimed the yearend credit. Just like I said, we don't have complete data. What would you expect after only 9 months? I hope our colleagues will take this into consideration when looking at a massive expansion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Yes, that is correct.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Wyden, Coleman, Baucus, Brownback, and Rockefeller to offer an amendment in recognition of the critical need to provide economic development assistance to Americans across this nation that have been negatively impacted by trade. Trade Adjustment Assistance--TAA-- programs are essential in bringing short-term financial and retraining assistance to workers who have been displaced due to imports or shifts in production. I have long supported the TAA program as it has helped those in Maine and across the Nation who are unemployed because of trade to find new employment and gain the appropriate skills these new jobs require, and this amendment builds upon this crucial program.

What we have before us is an amendment which recognizes that our desire to trade should be balanced with our ability to assist those adversely affected by trade. Our amendment is a comprehensive package of TAA improvements and additions that further seeks to better the conditions for America's workers and communities who find themselves negatively impacted in the wake of rapid international trade liberalization.

Our amendment contains provisions to assist trade-impacted communities similar to those included in my bill, The Trade for America's Communities Act, which I introduced last year. My legislation gives the Department of Commerce the authority to use the revenue collected from tariffs--which currently goes to corporations--to provide technical assistance to communities that have been negatively impacted by trade. The bill--and portions of this amendment--helps communities to develop strategic plans that would focus on the creation and retention of jobs and to promote economic diversification.

Our amendment also makes critical TAA changes in relation to the service sector. We need to recognize that trade affects not just manufacturing sectors of the economy, but service industries as well. Current TAA provisions cover manufacturing workers but exclude the 80 percent of American non-farm jobs in the service sector. Our amendment makes existing TAA benefits available to service workers whose jobs move overseas and increases training funds to match anticipated enrollment. This provision is sorely needed in places like Lewiston, ME, where 84 service sector layoffs occurred at the ICT call center, or 30 workers at Prexar in Bangor, ME--all service sector workers.

When you start adding these types of layoffs to that of production in small towns across the country, the impact is sizable, making the distinction between service and production workers irrelevant. These dynamic changes that are outgrowths of trade are similar to technological advances in productivity that leave workers out of jobs, or plants out of operation.

Beyond these provisions, the amendment also provides important improvements to the refundable health care tax credit for laid-off workers and retirees that was originally created in 2002 as part of the Trade Promotion Authority Act.

Two years ago, I was proud to work closely as a member of the Finance Committee with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley to create the HCTC as a means for displaced workers to continue receiving the health care benefits they lost as a consequence of trade. I worked to bring this benefit to fruition to help these displace workers get the health coverage they need when faced with the loss of employment because the assistance option at that time, namely COBRA, was too expensive to be feasible. I will continue my efforts to see that it is properly administered and adequately received by TAA-certified beneficiaries. There have been countless situations prior to introducing the HCTC where the workers were left without health care insurance, and this is a situation that we have only begun to remedy by creating the HCTC.

Unfortunately, recent studies have demonstrated that the tax credit has not been widely utilized by workers. Just last month, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that only about 10 percent of workers certified under the TAA program have applied for the health care tax credit since its enactment. In fact, according to Blue-Cross/Blue- Shield, only about 100 people in Maine are signed up for the HCTC.

In 2002, the original Senate version that I worked on called for a 75 percent HCTC benefit. Unfortunately this benefit was reduced to 65 percent in conference. That is why I am pleased that our amendment today will restore this benefit to its originally proposed level. This adjustment to the HCTC will allow more TAA-certified workers to take advantage of the tax credit by making health care more affordable as they seek new employment. As many of my colleagues would agree, TAA- certified workers may still find it difficult to cover 25 percent of the cost of premiums, but it is surely a step in the right direction to making the HCTC more accessible.

This past February, I met with union members in my state who were laid off as a result of the shutdown of the Eastern Pulp and Paper mills in Lincoln and Brewer, ME, to talk about their needs. During the meeting, I heard first hand that the 35 percent of the cost of the health insurance premiums under the HCTC program is still too high when most displaced workers are only receiving a maximum of $292.00 per week in unemployment insurance--and premiums can be as high as $559.91 per month for an individual and as high as $1,483.75 for a family. The union officials also informed me that in the case of the Brewer, ME, mill, of the 350 employees affected by the shutdown, only 6 took advantage of the HCTC. Frankly, if the credit is unworkable and unattainable, then there is no point in having it in the first place. This cost is a real stumbling block for displaced workers, and we must look at this program on a basic level of affordability for impacted individuals.

Another problem that was identified to me during this meeting is that the statute is unclear and too restrictive. This has made administration of the credit difficult. For example, while the HCTC is refundable, the IRS currently does not advance the first month's tax credit, which means the displaced worker must pay for the entire health care premium the first month--100 percent of the cost. This, in many cases, causes the worker to not take advantage of the HCTC because they simply cannot afford that first payment. In the case of the Eastern Pulp and Paper mills, a worker and his or her spouse would have to come up with $1,500 that first month. Clearly this would turn a prospective beneficiary away right at the beginning. The need to streamline the administrative process of the HCTC is paramount to making it more accessible.

We attempt to remedy this situation in this amendment by improving access to the credit as well as making it more effective. Not only does the amendment increase the credit percentage from 65 percent to 75 percent of the individuals' health care premiums, but it also instructs the IRS to provide an expedited refund of the first month's tax credit. Workers in my home state of Maine who are being laid off have told me that they just cannot afford the cost of health insurance. This amendment will make health care more accessible for this population.

Beyond expanding the size of the credit, our amendment also provides important outreach initiatives to get the word out to eligible workers about the existence of the credit. For example, the amendment allows states, to use funds from a National Emergency Grant, to provide outreach and marketing to inform individuals of the available health insurance options, including low cost options, that qualify for the health care tax credit. Maine has already done this with great success which is a testament to why we need to make this a viable option nationwide. While this may seem like a simple change, it is one of great impact, as too many eligible workers are unaware that these benefits even exist.

Overall, these reforms to this vital health care tax credit are critical to get workers and retires the information and the access they need to ensure health insurance coverage.

The cost of this amendment is estimated to be about $5 billion over the next 10 years for the expanded TAA benefits and the improvements to the health care tax credit for TAA recipients. Our amendment proposes to offset this cost by closing a loophole in the administration of the earned income tax credit--EITC--that is allowing individuals to inappropriately claim refundable tax benefits.

Current, Social Security numbers are provided for to individuals for employment and to obtain Federal and State benefits. Under current law, individuals are required to have a work related Social Security in order to claim the earned income tax credit in every situation but one: individuals who have attained a Social Security number solely in order to gain State benefits.

Currently, the IRS is unable to differentiate between an individual who has a work or non-work related Social Security number. Therefore, individuals who are not working but have a non-work related Social Security number are able to receive EITC without having been qualified to do so.

The offset provision in this amendment would require every individual claiming the EITC to have a Social Security number that is valid for employment. Thus, individuals with non-work related Social Security numbers, regardless of why they were offered, would not qualify.

This provision was included in the President's budget and is estimated to raise about $5.7 billion over 10 years, by the IRS, Treasury Department and Office of Management and Budget and fully offsets the cost of this amendment by recouping the lost revenue from this unintended loophole in the law.

I understand that there is technical discrepancy between Joint Tax and the Treasury on the scoring of this offset. While its clear that it will provide billions in savings to the Government, I intend to work with Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus to ensure that this entire bill meets the requirements of the Budget Act and is fully offset according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office; the official score keepers for Congress, as well as the Department of the Treasury.

The fact is trade results in both the formation of new jobs as well as the loss of others. These assistance programs recognize this reality and help give the American worker the education, training and skills they need to find another job and continue in gainful employment--while at the same time assisting them with the financial means to sustain their families as they pursue the necessary retraining. Since 1997, over 10,000 Mainers have applied for TAA benefits. Clearly the need for these programs is as strong as ever.

In small towns where the livelihood of the local economy depends on one industry, one plant or one company that is suffering under trade liberalization, it can cause devastation when that steel mill, paper mill, or textile mill shuts down. I have personally witnessed time and time again the hardship that trade liberalization policies can cause.

In towns like East Millinocket and Millinocket, ME, where Great Northern Paper went bankrupt; in Waterville, ME, where Hathaway Shirt shut down as a result of shirt production being moved overseas; or most recently the Eastern Pulp & Paper mills in Lincoln and Brewer, ME, local economies were sent into disarray. These closures have a ripple effect throughout the region. Efforts were made in these communities to form transition teams to assist the impacted workers find the assistance resources necessary to survive financially through these difficult times. I helped lead the way to these assistance resources, but I continue to recognize that these communities need much broader assistance. That is just part of the reason I have been so adamant in my support for improvements in Trade Adjustment Assistance.

With the momentum provided by the passage and implementation of Trade Promotion Authority, the President has moved aggressively on an agenda of bilateral, regional and global agreements that promote the liberalization of trade and seek to grow the U.S. economy. As the President has argued, this policy agenda creates new opportunities for prosperity and growth. But in order for this to work, free trade has to be fair and we must be diligent in enforcing the rules to ensure we are operating on a level playing field.

At the same time, we must never forget that opportunities of market access, improved consumer choice, and availability of manufacturing inputs come with the price of transitions, dislocations, and shifts in the U.S. economy. America's workers--both manufacturing and service sector--and communities are often faced with difficult realities in the rapidly changing nature of international trade liberalization.

However, while technological advances are the initiative of private enterprise, trade liberalization and enforcement is the chosen policy of government. Change and progress can be good, but we must never ignore or forget those Americans who find themselves unfairly treated in an era of global commerce. Congress must make the difficult decisions to turn these challenges into opportunities for this Nation.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment and join my colleagues as we continue to recognize and address the oft-ignored consequences of international trade liberalization. At the end of the day, it is the people and communities of this nation that matter most, and when policies which hurt their economic livelihoods are promulgated by government, it is incumbent upon all of us to find ways to help.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa for his statement. I hope our colleagues paid attention to it.

I see my friend from Oregon. Before I make my statement, I have a question because I am trying to determine who is eligible. How many weeks does a worker have to work in a service industry before he would be eligible for this trade adjustment assistance?

I am asking a question.

That is how many weeks?

I reclaim my time. If my colleague from Oregon finds an answer to that, I appreciate hearing it. I have asked our staff the answer to that question and it came back that a person only had to work 26 weeks of the previous 52 to qualify for the benefit.

I wanted to make sure. We are saying if you work in service, manufacturing, we will give you trade adjustment assistance. What is the benefit? The benefit is equal to 2 years of unemployment compensation. For what? A person worked 26 weeks--one half of a year-- and now under this proposal, we are expanding it.

It was too generous in the first place. We are expanding it to say a person is entitled to receive very generous benefits, benefits equal to 2 years of unemployment compensation, 26 weeks by the State, and a year and a half under the Federal program, all federally paid unemployment compensation. That is more generous. All other States have 26 weeks.

We have debated that back and forth, but now we are saying for this group of employees, you get 2 years, mostly paid for by the Federal Government. That is too generous.

No, I want to make a few comments. Then I will be happy to engage in a dialog.

What is the cost of this proposal? I have heard somebody say it is paid for. It is not, according to the scoring rules we use in the Senate. The cost of it--and we got a copy of this from the Congressional Budget Office. The total budget authority over 10 years is $5.3 billion; estimated outlay is $5 billion, and a revenue decrease, because of the insurance tax credit, of $669 million. So it is a total cost of 7.6 billion over 10 years.

Now let's look at a couple of other provisions in the bill. This bill says we will take the present program and expand it. We will give basically refundable tax credits for insurance. The present program says the Federal Government will pay 65 percent of it, two-thirds. This bill says we will replace that and have the Federal Government pay 75 percent. That is three-fourths, if you are not real quick in math. And there is no limit on the cost.

So a person in high tech, as I heard my colleague say, could maybe have a very generous health care plan, maybe it costs $10,000 a year and the Federal Government will pay $7,500 because there is not a limit in the cost.

Wow. This thing is just growing. And maybe some people get some support from this union or that union, and it sounds good. But you start looking at it and you say: What are we doing? It purports to make some changes in the earned-income tax program. I am happy to make changes in the earned-income tax program, but I don't think this gets it done.

Basically what I see this doing is expanding an entitlement, saying, if you happen to be unemployed, either through manufacturing or through service workers, and somebody can say it is because those jobs went overseas--and that is somewhat discretionary in the assessment of it-- the Federal Government is going to pick up three-fourths of your health care cost for the next 2 years and you are entitled to 2 years of unemployment compensation.

Unemployment compensation for most States averages about $260, $280, maybe $300 a week. In some States it is up to $700 a week. Again, there is no limit. If you are looking at $700 a week, you are talking about real money. You do that for 104 weeks, that is a pretty generous benefit paid by the Federal Government.

Guess what, folks. We have a little deficit problem around here. This is going to add to it. In fact, this would add to it to the tune of about $7 or $8 billion--$7.3 billion, I believe. At the appropriate time, I am going to make a budget point of order.

Let me give a little facts on trade adjustment assistance. Again, for all of our fiscal conservatives who say we need to get a handle on Federal spending, trade adjustment assistance cost $350 million in the year 2001. The year 2004, it cost $800 million. If we do this expansion, it is going to grow dramatically.

There are lots of reasons to vote against this proposal. I urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to vote against it, and at the appropriate time I will be making a budget point of order.

First, I yield to my colleague from Oregon.

How much time remains?

I am happy to yield to my colleague from Montana for a question.

The Senator is correct. I believe you do provide trade adjustment assistance to workers in companies where it is 20 percent and you are looking backward to see whether they qualify.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I agree.

I didn't say there was a lump sum. I said the facts are the benefits under this Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, which was an amendment that was added to the fast-track promotion bill to maybe encourage some people to vote for it, in my opinion, is fatally flawed. Because it has a tax credit where the Federal Government is going to pay two-thirds of the health care costs, 65 percent of the health care cost if somebody is in this category. You only have to work 26 weeks out of the previous year and yet you can get your health care benefits paid for under current law 65 percent by the Federal Government. This makes it three-fourths paid for by the Federal Government. That is a serious mistake. It benefits, frankly, those plans and those companies that have very high health care costs. In some cases that would be union plans that maybe overpromised, and they have very expensive plans.

It also would benefit those people who say: Wait a minute. I lost my job. I lost my job because now that job is being done in India. Maybe somebody is a programmer or maybe somebody is a computer programmer or maybe they are a telephone solicitor and now maybe that job is being done some in the States and some overseas. But the company had a tough time. Maybe it is a telecommunications company and they reduced their employment. But there happens to be some employment overseas. You could see a whole lot of people saying: My job was lost because it went to India, because it went to China. Therefore, even though I have only worked there for 26 weeks out of the last year, pay for my health care for the next 2 years, Uncle Sam. And yes, I want unemployment compensation for the next 2 years. Thank you very much. And incidentally, I want cash. Give me $5,000 cash for the next 2 years.

That is all in this system. It expands it greatly. That is the reason why the Congressional Budget Office says over the next 10 years it is going to cost $6 billion. At the appropriate time, I will be making a budget point of order that it is not paid for. I am going to make a pay-go point of order.

For the information of my colleagues who are very confused on budget points of order, I have used committee allocation points of order. I could use that on this one, or I could use pay-go. Most of the time I have used committee allocation. I may start using pay-go so people become more familiar with it.

I understand people are in favor of pay-go. I would like for them to become more familiar with that particular budget point of order. We will be making it.

This amendment also increases the wage assistance that Senator Grassley mentioned, which is supposed to be for older workers who might have a hard time being retrained, down to 40 years. So all they have to do is work for 26 weeks and then we are going to give them wage assistance, wage insurance.

How socialistic do you have to get? People come to this floor and say, I believe in the free enterprise system, but if you have a change in jobs, we want the Federal Government to come in and give you your wage difference. We want to make up the difference. Oh, we are going to take care of your health care for the next 2 years. Yes, we are going to give you unemployment compensation for 2 years. Everybody else in the country has 26 weeks. But since you have determined maybe yours is because of overseas competition, we are going to give you 2 years. I don't think it is affordable. I don't think it makes sense. I think it was crafted in a way to maybe buy votes.

I look at these 57 pages and I am saying: Why don't we just call this an entitlement expansion? Let's expand all these programs. Let's tax and spend. How are we going to pay for it? It says we will do something with the earned-income tax credit. We will get those undocumented workers.

Joint Tax says that doesn't count. Joint Tax says that is a technicality, and so you don't get scoring for that. And we use Joint Tax around here.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I object.

How much time remains on both sides?

Will the Senator yield me the remainder of the time?

Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, we are going to vote in a moment. I have two or three quick comments I want to make. My very good friend from Oregon--and he is my good friend--as he is trying to find another vote said, wait a minute, we should not treat service workers differently than those in manufacturing. I used to run a manufacturing company. Manufacturing, frankly, in this country has been on about a 40-year decline, almost straight, on the number of jobs. The service industry, on the other hand, has been quite volatile, but jobs are increasing--frankly, increasing in lots of different and exciting ways.

But to say we are going to have a Federal benefit if somebody works in a job for 26 weeks and somebody says, I lost my job and I think I lost it because of overseas competition, therefore, I am entitled to 2 years of unemployment compensation, I am entitled to a refundable, advanceable tax credit, and basically to have the Federal Government pay for my health care--three-fourths of it--for the next 2 years, and to get cash assistance of up to $5,000 a year for each year, I think is going over board. It costs a lot of money.

The Congressional Budget Office scored this. We just got this. You ask, why? We just got the amendment, so we just got the score from CBO. It says the outlays to this are $5.3 billion in BA, or obligation authority. The tax credit would cost $669 million over the next 10 years. The cost is about $6 billion. According to Joint Tax, it is not paid for.

I don't really think we should have the Federal Government using our resources, which are limited--and we have an enormous deficit--for paying three-fourths of the cost of a worker's health care costs for 2 years because they happened to work for 6 months. I don't think that makes good sense for a lot of reasons. I don't think it makes good sense to lower the eligibility on this wage insurance program and that we are going to pay people $5,000 a year because they might take a lower paying job. I think that sounds so socialistic. Somebody says that is better than unemployment comp. This is in addition to unemployment comp. So we are going to do unemployment comp, do your health care, give you cash in the meantime, and do your retraining.

I don't think the Federal Government can do it all. This program has grown from 300-some-million dollars in 2001 to $800 million in 2004. If this amendment passes, it would be a billion dollars plus. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor, of supporting the budget although there may be a motion to waive this pay-go point of order.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I make a point of order that the amendment offered by my good friend, the Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, increases mandatory spending and, if adopted, would cause an increase in the deficit in excess of the levels permitted in the most recently adopted budget resolution. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 505 of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. President, I would like to briefly outline this bipartisan amendment. This is cosponsored by my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Coleman. We are joined by Senator Snowe and Senator Brownback, and on our side by the distinguished ranking member, Senator Baucus, and Senator Rockefeller. There is a strong bipartisan coalition for this amendment because the fact is under our trade adjustment laws, millions of our workers have been left behind.

This law has been of great benefit to those in the manufacturing sector for more than three decades, but for millions of our workers who work in the service sector, who work, for example, in the high- technology sector, the safety net the Trade Adjustment Act provides has not been there. So all of the benefits offered by the trade adjustment legislation in terms of help with retraining, assistance with health care, a bit of income to get by--all of the services that make it possible for one to use this critical law as a trampoline to get back into the private sector economy have not been available in the service sector and in the high-technology sector, and that is what our bipartisan amendment would change.

In the last few hours apparently there has been one letter from an insurance company that has been offered up as an argument against this. It states that in some way our legislation would damage the opportunity for private insurance companies to deliver health benefits under this legislation. Senator Coleman and I would never support something like that, and I wish to outline exactly why our amendment does not damage the opportunity for private insurance companies to deliver health care under our proposal.

Our amendment states that all current private sector health care delivery systems would be continued in every State in America. So let me start with that.

Under our bipartisan amendment, in every State in America the private sector options that are offered now could be continued.

We do state in our proposal that if there is discrimination, say, on the basis of genetic history or disability or other concrete examples of discrimination, then the Office of Personnel Management would be given the discretion--not required but they would be

given the discretion--to step in and ensure that there is an affordable alternative.

Second, we protect the option of private health insurers participating in the system by stipulating that our amendment will not override State decisionmaking. This is very important because, again, in every State in our country, State insurance law allows for private insurers to be involved in the health care delivery system.

Third, apparently there was a concern raised that in some way this amendment would encourage adverse selection and then there would be a disproportionate number of those who are needy and ailing going to private insurers.

The fact is that the bipartisan amendment will reduce adverse selection. It will reduce adverse selection by increasing the subsidy that is available for health care in America. It will expand outreach, which will be beneficial, and make it easier for people to sign up. So the prospect that this will encourage adverse selection and damage private insurers is also incorrect.

So I want to be clear because there was one letter that was brought up recently in the last few hours opposing all of the good bipartisan work that has been done on this for months and months, and I wanted to set the record clear that for the three reasons I have outlined our bipartisan legislation will do no damage to the important private sector health delivery options that are available now in every State in America and will be continued under our legislation.

I believe I will have a bit more time later. I think Senator Coleman did an incredibly good job yesterday of outlining the case for why it is so important to help these workers. I know in my home State, folks do not understand why if one is hurting in Beaverton, OR, or they have lost their job as a result of trade they cannot be in a position to compete against somebody in Bangalore. That is what this issue is all about.

I see our friend, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, is in the Chamber. He has done such good work over the years with respect to the training and other programs that are essential. With this legislation that has been produced by a bipartisan group, including Senators Coleman, Brownback, Snowe, Rockefeller, and Baucus, we are giving a chance to that great bulk of workers in the service sector and in the high-technology sector to have a chance to use this program as a trampoline to get back into the economy. They are not going to get that chance under other programs. There is no other program that gives that same kind of opportunity to folks who are hurting in this way. We have done it in a bipartisan way. We have done it in a cost-effective way. We have done it in a fashion so as to not damage the right of private health insurers in every State in the country to deliver the benefit.

I will have a bit more to say as we get into the debate, but I also conclude this portion by thanking my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. He has been a great champion of a bipartisan effort.

I yield the floor.

I yield time to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, how much additional time, if any, do I have?

I ask unanimous consent for up to 5 additional minutes. I ask that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, would also have that additional time if my unanimous consent request was agreed to. We have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. I ask that I have up to 5 additional minutes and that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee would also have up to 5 additional minutes.

Mr. President, how much additional time do I have remaining?

I yield 2 minutes at this time to Senator Coleman.

I have enormous respect for the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. I will take a minute or two to touch on the issue being raised.

The distinguished chairman of the committee has repeatedly said: The program would be stretched too far; the program is already at its limits; when would enough be enough?

I say to my distinguished friend, when we are only covering 5 percent of the people eligible for the health care benefit, we have to do better. By any calculation, that is not something that reflects well on our bipartisan desires.

The chairman of the committee knows I have been supportive of these trade agreements the Senator from Iowa and the distinguished Senator from Montana have championed. They have opened up the opportunity for U.S. companies to set up shops overseas and generate jobs and investment.

Senator Coleman and I want to open up the trade adjustment program so when our U.S. workers are hurt, they are not left behind. Senator Coleman and I have said this is a question of bringing the law in line with the times. It made sense more than three decades ago when it focused on manufacturing.

The chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, has hit the key question: When is enough enough? We believe, on a bipartisan basis, it is not enough when you are covering only 5 percent of the workers for health care and you are leaving four-fifths of the economy, people in the service sector and the high-technology sector, behind.

There is a reason why business and labor have come together to support our amendment. This amendment is supported by the Business Roundtable. It is supported by the Technology Industry Association. The two key business groups, the Business Roundtable, the Technology Industry Association, and the labor sector, have come together because they have seen a bipartisan effort that has gone on for months, led by the distinguished Senator from Montana and the Senator from Minnesota, to bring the Senate together.

If Members vote against this amendment, I believe it is a vote that will continue discrimination under law against those who work in the high-technology and service sector. It will keep the door closed to millions of our workers in the technology and service sector. I know no Senator intends that, but that will be the practical effect.

We will have only one vote in this session of the Senate as to whether we will have a chance to stand up for these workers who have been hammered as a result of unfair trading practices or simply competition, when we pay $40 or $50 an hour and competitors overseas pay vastly less.

I am very hopeful the bipartisan efforts that have been made will not be in vain. The distinguished Senator from Iowa has put his hand on the key question: When is enough enough? We respectfully say, if we are only covering 5 percent of the workers and leaving four-fifths of the economy behind and the support of the Business Roundtable and the Technology Industry Association, it is not enough. We can do better.

The distinguished Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the committee, and the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Baucus, know I have been very supportive of their policies in the past and expect to be in the future, particularly with respect to these trade agreements. When the trade agreements open up the opportunities for our companies, we have to open up the opportunity for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program to help our workers when they have been left behind.

This will be the one chance to stand up for millions of workers in the high-tech and service sector. I hope our colleagues will support this bipartisan amendment.

I yield the floor.

Same as current law.

That is current law.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I will let the Senator from Montana ask a question, and then I have a minute.

Mr. President, to respond very briefly, we pay for it as essentially outlined in the President's budget. According to OMB and the Treasury Department, we would close the loophole that would save taxpayers approximately $5.7 trillion over 10 years. That is the way we pay for the program. The people who are going to be eligible for the program are going to get the same opportunities as those in the manufacturing sector, the same number of weeks.

The Senator from Oklahoma has talked about unemployment compensation. This is about retraining people. This is about health care benefits.

If you think we are doing enough today when 5 percent of the people get access to the health care program, then I guess that is a rationale for voting against this amendment. I would hope the bipartisan work that has been done on this legislation by myself, Senator Coleman, Senator Brownback, Senator Snowe, and Senator Baucus would warrant the support of our colleagues.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 505(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, I move to waive section 505 of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.