Expressing the sense of the United States House of Representatives that the United States should adhere to moral and ethical principles of economic justice and fairness in developing and advancing United States international trade treaties, agreements, and investment policies.

I thank the gentleman, and thank the esteemed chairman, for bringing this bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, the real answer to growing job loss in the United States, the declining value of our dollar and to rising trade deficits is to balance America's trade accounts by renegotiating failed deals like NAFTA and China PNTR, by not passing any more of them, by opening closed markets like Japan's and China's, and Korea's and by stopping unfair trade practices globally.

Meanwhile, our workers continue to take the big hits by losing their jobs and benefits. What this bill does is it gives them increased notice when their plants are going to close, and it also provides a landing pad in the form of training and trade adjustment assistance. I just wish that the jobs they are being trained for would be produced. We know that often is not the case.

This is the absolute least we can do for the people of our country. They have paid the price of our failure here in Washington to produce economic policies that make America's economy robust.

I fear, without our doing that, we are going to lose the industrial and defense prowess that made the United States the leader post-World War II. I just thank the committee for providing this bill which will help the casualties reposition a bit.

The real answer to growing U.S. job loss, the declining value of the dollar, and rising budget and trade deficits is to balance America's trade accounts by renegotiating failed deals like NAFTA and China PNTR and not pass more of them, by opening closed markets like Japan's, China's, and Korea's, and stopping unfair trade practices globally.

Meanwhile, our workers continue to take the big hits--they lose their jobs, they lose their benefits.

This bill gives them some help--by giving them increased notice before their plants are closed, and it revamps trade assistance and training to help them reposition if the jobs exist in the future.

We owe it to our workers and communities to give them a better chance to adjust. They are the casualties of economic policy here in Washington that is not working. This legislation will require employers to provide 90 days of notice in the event of a proposed plant closing or layoff.

Trigger the notification requirements if at least 25 workers lose their jobs during any 30-day period, not 50 workers as in current legislation;

Mandate notice if 100 or more workers are laid off at multiple plants or worksites during any 30-day period;

Cover both full-time and part-time hourly and salaried workers;

Require the Department of Labor to provide model educational information to employers on employer responsibilities and employee rights under WARN, as well as benefits and services available to dislocated workers;

Authorize the Department of Labor to investigate complaints and bring enforcement suits and also to notify Members of Congress who represent the affected areas;

Permit employees to recover back pay and benefits up to 90 days and also liquidated damages (doubling the compensation otherwise available) if an employer fails to give the required notice under the act; and,

Important to note is the legislation's extension of the period for COBRA (comprehensive benefits, including health care) coverage for recipients of trade adjustment assistance. Under current COBRA rules, workers who lose their jobs generally may continue their health benefits for up to 18 months at their own expense. The new legislation would give workers who are 55 years or older and have worked for an employer for 10 or more years the option to elect COBRA coverage until they become Medicare eligible at 65 or until they obtain health coverage through a subsequent employer.

While I support this bill, we must keep in mind that TAA and WARN aren't substitutes for jobs in manufacturing America. An America that does not produce not only loses the most vibrant wealth-producing sector of her economy but her defense and industrial base as well.

TAA and WARN should be used sparingly and for the short term--they are band-aids, not solutions. We need to pass legislation requiring the executive branch to balance our trade accounts, to renegotiate NAFTA/ PNTR, and to open closed markets of the world.

It is no secret that we are voting on TAA today, to increase votes for the Peru Free Trade Agreement next week. Our willingness to sell out our Nation's workforce for the consolation prize of trade adjustment assistance promises to damage our country for decades to come.

I have two bills--H. Res. 336 and H.R. 169, the Balancing Trade Act, which will get our country back on the right track. By supporting H. Res. 336, we support fair, people-centered principles that promote free trade only among free peoples. The Balancing Trade Act, which already enjoys bipartisan support, demands that the President acknowledge a problem in our trade policy when our deficit with any one country exceeds $10 billion for more than 3 years. I also have a bill (H.R. 1958) to revoke PNTR from China, and I will be introducing a bill to require the President to renegotiate NAFTA. These bills are steps towards correcting our U.S. trade policy to prevent the kinds of layoffs and job loss that these bills merely ice over.

[From the Toledo Blade, July 16, 2007]

Tiffin Workers Discover Limits of WARN Act

(By Steve Eder and James Drew)

Tiffin.--Four days after Christmas in 2001, Gene Goshe

braved the brisk cold as he walked to his newspaper box and

unrolled his copy of the Tiffin Advertiser-Tribune.

``National shutting down,'' blared the headline in tall

letters across the front page.

In seconds, Mr. Goshe's life changed forever.

After devoting 33 years of his life to the National

Machinery Co., Mr. Goshe read in the newspaper that morning

that the plant had abruptly closed. He didn't get a phone

call to let him know he no longer had a job.

``It was like a snowball hit you in the hind end on the

first of January,'' recalled Mr. Goshe, then 58. ``This is

the way we are going to start the year.''

The sudden demise of National Machinery stunned Tiffin, a

town of 17,000 about 55 miles southeast of Toledo already

reeling from plant closings and layoffs.

The plant, a few blocks from the small downtown, made the

machines that made nuts and bolts since the 1880s. But while

the products of its machines embodied the ordinary, the

storied history of National Machinery was far from typical.

``The National''--as locals affectionately called it--

provided a choice working environment for generations in and

around Seneca County, a flat, fertile part of northwest Ohio

dotted with fields and woodlots.

The company's reputation as an exceptional employer was

rooted in its traditions--a club for employees who had worked

there at least 25 years, summer picnics at Cedar Point, and

Christmas parties at the fancy Ritz Theatre.

National Machinery was like family, workers recalled. Not

surprisingly, it was begun by Tiffin's first families--the

Frosts and Kalnows, whose ownership dates to the 1880s, when

patriarch Meshech Frost convinced the company's original

owner to move its operations to Tiffin.

The Frosts, and later the Kalnows, are recognized as

Tiffin's leading community boosters, using some of their vast

fortune to support local causes and institutions, including

the city's Heidelberg College, where the families set up

scholarship programs to benefit the children of National

Machinery employees.

a fractured bond

The bond between the privately held company and its workers

changed forever on Dec. 28, 2001--the date National shut

down.

For most of the 549 National Machinery Co. employees, there

was no notice the place where many of them had dedicated

their working lives was closing.

Paul Aley, National Machinery's president, explained to

workers in a letter dated the day the plant closed that banks

cut off the company's money because of its financial

troubles. Most employees didn't receive Mr. Aley's letter

until they had already read about National's demise in the

newspaper or heard about it from friends or co-workers.

In 1988, Congress passed a law requiring business owners to

give 60-days notice before a plant closing or mass layoff. If

National Machinery Co. had followed the Worker Adjustment and

Retraining Notification Act, known as the WARN Act, its

employees could have begun looking for new work and putting

their finances in order instead of dealing with the shock of

suddenly losing their jobs.

There were concerns about the well-being of National

Machinery Co. leading up to its closure. Citing financial

problems, the company announced some layoffs earlier in 2001

and gave most of its workers the holidays off without pay.

But the veteran workers expected business would pick back up

as it had many times over the years.

This time wasn't like the others.

hoping for better times

In the weeks and months after National Machinery's

shutdown, employees looked to their faith for strength.

Twice a week, employees such as Mr. Goshe, a Vietnam

veteran and father of four, would gather outside the plant at

noon and form a prayer circle with 50 to 75 people. In the

cold January and February air, they would pray for each other

and for the future of National Machinery Co.

``Everybody would go around and if anybody had something to

say, they'd say it, or they would say a prayer,'' Mr. Goshe

said. ``If anybody had anything they wanted to get off their

chest, they could get it off their chest.''

The workers took pride in their roles in National

Machinery's history and held out hope for a return to better

times.

``National Machinery had the knowledge in town that they

were the best employer in Seneca County,'' said Mark Griffin,

a 38-year employee. ``We had some other big employers in

Seneca County, but that was the best place to work.

``They took care of their people, they had a fair wage, you

worked your overtime, had a great retirement, and they took

care of you,'' Mr. Griffin said.

From its Quarter Century Club, which honored employees of

25 years, to its picnics, baseball leagues, and community

service, National Machinery was steeped in tradition.

Its owners, the Frosts and Kalnows, who for decades

referred to their employees as ``Our people,'' instilled an

unapologetic sense of family in and outside the plant.

They provided quality employment, fair wages, and steady

jobs, and in return they expected their workers to live up to

National Machinery standards to protect the image of the

company. Employees in the 1970s and '80s were expected to be

clean-cut and trouble-free. They were forbidden from cashing

their checks at local watering holes.

Mr. Griffin said National Machinery employees had enough

pride in their work to cash their checks at a bank, not at a

bar.

In return, Mr. Griffin said, ``If you got into trouble or

were a little short, they would always bring the money up

ahead of you. They would pick you up and you could pay 'em

back later. It was like a family thing.''

a tiffin institution

National Machinery began four generations of ownership by

the Frost and then Kalnow families soon after Meshech Frost

convinced Bill Anderson to move the company to Tiffin in

1882.

In Tiffin, there is much folklore about National Machinery

and its family ownership.

One tale is that Mr. Frost went to New York City to get a

loan from financier ``Diamond'' Jim Brady to help purchase

the company.

After his death in 1922, Mr. Frost left the company to his

son, Earl Frost, who ran it into the 1950s. Earl Frost's

daughter, Jane Frost, who was the heiress to the family

fortune, married Carl Kalnow, a banker, and together they

owned National Machinery Co.

National Machinery employees still fondly recall the story

behind the Frost-Kalnow engagement.

``From what I know, Mr. Kalnow came to town and he got off

the train and asked who the richest man in town was and if he

had a daughter,'' Mr. Griffin said. ``It was Miss Frost and

he ended up marrying her.''

The Kalnows had four children--Carl, Andrew, Gertrude, and

Loretta--who inherited National Machinery after their

mother's death in 1986.

In 1998, the Kalnow siblings--who were raised in Tiffin but

had moved away--sold the company for $98 million to Citicorp

Venture Capital, a New York-based firm that buys and sells

companies as investments.

Within three years, National Machinery rapidly declined

from a thriving company to an abruptly shuttered one.

A different company

After National Machinery closed, the Kalnow siblings--who

had kept a seat on the company's board of directors and a 15

percent stake in the business as part of the sale--became the

workers' best hope for rescuing the company.

In the weeks after the company closed its doors, the

Kalnows, led by Andrew Kalnow, founder of Chicago-based Alpha

Capital Partners, a private equity investment firm, began

negotiating to buy National Machinery's debt from a

consortium of banks holding tens of millions of dollars in

notes--the debt taken on to buy the company from him and his

family.

In February, 2002, the Kalnows repurchased National

Machinery for $16 million, just a fraction of what they had

sold it for just three years earlier.

In Tiffin, many employees believed their prayers were

answered.

But they soon learned that National Machinery, under its

new ownership, would be a far different company than the one

they had devoted 20, 30, or even 40 years of their lives.

In a complex business transaction, the Kalnows established

National Machinery LLC, or limited liability company, which

they used to essentially purchase the property and assets of

the former National Machinery Co.

The sale was completed in such a way that the new company

would inherit the old company's headquarters in Tiffin, its

factory, its machinery, and its customers. But it would have

no responsibility to pay the debts of the old company. Those

debts included millions of dollars owed to suppliers and $1.5

million more owed to area doctors and health-care facilities

for medical services provided to former employees before the

plant closed.

Officials of the new company eventually agreed to pay an

undisclosed amount toward the $1.5 million in medical bills

owed by former plant workers. But the new company said it had

no legal obligation to the employees of the ``old company,''

who were left behind when the plant closed in December, 2001.

A spokesman for National Machinery LLC last week said WARN

Act issues were handled by the former plant owner and their

lawyers.

``Like many other companies today facing the challenge of

being successful in a highly competitive world market,

National Machinery LLC is leaner and less vertically

integrated,'' said John Bolte, senior vice president of

operations and human resources. ``Many processes and

therefore jobs from the past simply do not exist in our

company in order to make us more competitive.''

Attempts by The Blade to interview Andrew Kalnow and his

siblings were unsuccessful.

In an e-mail from Mr. Kalnow last month, he told The Blade:

``It seems like you have a politics agenda in mind that has

nothing to do with our business and contribution to the

community.''

A sense of betrayal

The Kalnows' ``new company''--National Machinery LLC--in

the spring of 2002 hired nearly 240 full-time employees after

it reopened the plant, many of whom worked for the ``old

company.''

But many of National Machinery Co.'s 549 employees,

including some of its longest-tenured workers, such as Joe

Poignon, never received the call to come back.

``They started it back up, but they excluded us,'' said Mr.

Poignon, a 40-year employee who worked in the company's

after-market section. ``There was people who weren't retired

out there who had more than 25 years of service and they were

not called back.''

Some grew bitter, angry, and depressed as they waited and

waited for the call from National Machinery that never came.

``It's the way they treated us,'' said Mr. Poignon, who

tries to avoid Greenfield Street in Tiffin, where National

Machinery is located. ``Not calling us in to inform us of

anything, and not being up front and square with us, and

being ostracized after they reopened the plant. None of us

deserve that. After we have given our lives to it, our good

working years are gone. We can't go out and restart. We gave

them all our good working years.''

He added, ``You feel like you've been betrayed.''

Depression and anger

Several former National Machinery employees fell into

depression as they tried to live without the work they had

been doing for most of their lives.

Others were angry.

Paul Martorana, a 27-year employee of National Machinery,

returned to the company's offices to settle his pension after

the new company had taken over. But before he left, he had a

request of Anne Martin, the company's secretary.

``Would you do me one favor?'' Mr. Martorana recalled

asking. ``Take my picture off the wall. I don't want anyone

to know I was ever associated with this company.''

Mr. Martorana wanted his picture taken off the walls of

National Machinery Co.'s Quarter Century Club. The club,

which had more than 735 members since it was established in

1936, honored the company's most loyal employees.

Many members of that devoted club were among those who were

unexpectedly thrown from their jobs, instantly losing health-

care coverage, paychecks, accrued vacation time, and the

stability of employment.

``A lot of people got hurt, financially and mentally,'' Mr.

Martorana said.

``We didn't know what to do,'' Mr. Poignon said. ``There

were people who were scheduled for surgery. They didn't know

what to do. They didn't have insurance. Some of them had

cancer.''

Picking up the pieces

It was difficult, if not impossible, for some former

employees to find reliable work after decades with National

Machinery. The employees had no time to plan, find new jobs,

or train for new careers.

Out of necessity, some took whatever they could find,

accepting steep pay cuts and losing benefits.

``It's basically turned our lives upside down,'' said

Sharon Goshe, who has been married to Gene Goshe for 34

years.

Mr. Goshe said he held out hope for about three months

after the plant closed, hoping that he would get a call to

return to work. The call never came.

``Once they opened back up and [I'd] seen the ones they

were hiring back, I was too old,'' Mr. Goshe said.

He began applying for nearly ``any job that was in the

paper,'' but he didn't have any success and began to suffer

from depression.

``The unemployment was running out, and we got the same old

stories,'' he said. ``You go out and you look for a job and

you get your hopes up, and you hear nothing.''

Ten months after National closed, Mr. Goshe took a job for

$10 an hour with no benefits at a local lumber yard, a $4 an

hour wage cut.

Many employees of National Machinery skipped their paid

vacations over the years, believing they had accrued months

of paid time off that could be used in the future. When the

old company shuttered, employees were not reimbursed for the

time.

The workers said they were also owed thousands of dollars

in lost wages and unpaid medical bills. But when they went to

the plant office and tried to collect from National Machinery

LLC, they heard a familiar refrain: ``Sue the old company.''

But the ``old company'' no longer existed.

Taking legal action

On Sept. 11, 2002, three former workers of National

Machinery Co.--Chad and Donald Baker and Paul Martorana--

filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court in Toledo on

behalf of all the workers who lost their jobs.

They sued National Machinery Co., Citicorp Venture Capital,

and two related entities claiming the WARN Act was violated

when the plant closed without a 60-day notice. They asked for

lost wages, vacation pay, and medical expenses they said they

were owed, totaling at least $4,000 per worker.

They received a quick education into the limitations and

loopholes of the federal law.

But the biggest obstacle they faced was the wall of legal

agreements, contracts, and documents set up by a squad of

lawyers to make sure that National Machinery LLC was not

responsible for the debts and actions of National Machinery

Co.

Attorneys for Citicorp Venture Capital argued that their

client wasn't the liable employer under the law because even

though Citicorp was the majority owner of the ``old

company,'' it didn't make business decisions on behalf of

National Machinery.

Because the ``old company'' was now a mere shell, its

former employees fell into one of the most prominent pitfalls

of the WARN Act--finding someone who could pay the workers

what they were owed.

Nearly three years after the company closed, attorneys for

the employees and Citicorp Venture Capital agreed to a

settlement that would pay $375 per worker before taxes--just

pennies on the dollar of what most employees felt they were

owed. National Machinery LLC, as a completely new entity, had

no obligation to the workers and was not involved in the

settlement.

An ``insult''

Calling the settlement an ``insult'' and frustrated with

the law, 74 former National Machinery employees wrote the

judge to object to the settlement.

``There were a lot of very good employees that were

completely devastated when all this happened and some

satisfaction needs to be given to all of us,'' Virginia

Coffman wrote. Mrs. Coffman, along with her husband, John

Coffman, worked for National Machinery Co. for more than 28

years. ``This type of treatment cannot be allowed to go

unnoticed and just slide by, it has hurt many responsible

people who are still trying to recover.''

In a handwritten note, Steven Webster, a former National

Machinery employee from Upper Sandusky, Ohio, explained that

the company's sudden closing triggered a financial tailspin

that caused him to fall behind on child-support payments. Mr.

Webster explained that he needed to withdraw from his 401K

plan twice to keep banks from foreclosing on his home.

``For the six months I was without a job. I had my water,

electric, and gas shut off and had to live with my mother for

a while until I got a job because I couldn't afford food or

anything,'' Mr. Webster wrote.

Many of the workers sent copies of their letters to their

representatives in Congress and the Statehouse, including

U.S. Rep. Paul Gillmor (R., Tiffin), U.S. Sens. George

Voinovich and Mike DeWine, then-Gov. Bob Taft, and state Rep.

Jeff Wagner (R., Sycamore).

None of them was willing to fight for their constituents,

at least on the WARN Act.

On Nov. 15, 2004. a group of former National Machinery Co.

employees went to federal court in Toledo to object in person

to the proposed settlement.

On their day in court, U.S. District Judge James Carr

empathized with the plight of the workers, inviting them to

sit in the jury box and address the court. But the judge all

but told the workers that his judicial powers were limited by

a law with no teeth.

In the end, Judge Carr reluctantly approved the settlement,

declaring it a ``pittance'' and telling angry workers it was

the best settlement they could hope for under the weak

federal law.

``Most simply put, and most unhappily, you're out of

luck,'' Judge Carr told the workers. ``That statute has

proven to be no protection to you.''

Lingering bitterness

In Tiffin, more than five years after the ``old company''

suddenly was closed on a cold December day, time has healed

some of the wounds. But there still remains an undercurrent

of regret and bitterness.

Today there's a sign outside the headquarters of National

Machinery LLC that proudly proclaims it as a 130-year-old

company.

The former employees never called back by the ``new

company'' say the sign epitomizes the hypocrisy of what

transpired at National Machinery.

``What I've heard is they think they've done great--

`they've saved the company,' '' Mr. Poignon said. ``You don't

want to think that the place you've worked your entire life

has done something terrible. They didn't fulfill their

promises to a lot of people who gave their whole lives to the

company.''

The laid-off workers have struggled to come to terms with

the fact that National Machinery LLC--which conducts its

business from the old headquarters of National Machinery Co.

in Tiffin, builds the same machines, and serves the same set

of clients--wasn't legally required to pay their lost wages

and benefits.

Some recognize that Andrew Kalnow may have saved National

Machinery, but they question why the rescue couldn't have

been performed more humanely, taking into account the loyalty

of many of the company's longtime employees.

They believe Meshech Frost and Jane Frost Kalnow would be

disappointed.

``It's all about putting money in your pocket,'' Mr.

Poignon said. ``Maybe morality has changed. Maybe young

people think this is OK. But in our day, this wasn't a moral

thing to do. If you look at the business side of it, it looks

pretty good.

``But if you look at the human side of it, there's been a

lot of damage.''

[From the Toledo Blade, Oct. 11, 2007]

House Chairman Offers a Tougher WARN Act

(By Steve Eder)

The powerful chairman of the House Education and Labor

Committee yesterday submitted his proposal to better assure

workers are given notice before they lose their jobs in mass

layoffs or business shutdowns.

U.S. Rep. George Miller (D., Calif.) became the second

member of the U.S. House to introduce legislation to reform

the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, known

as the WARN Act, a 19-year-old federal law that requires many

employers to provide 60 days' notice before layoffs.

Mr. Miller's bill was co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Marcy

Kaptur (D., Toledo).

``These are really extraordinary improvements over existing

legislation,'' Miss Kaptur said during an interview

yesterday. ``There are more teeth in this [bill] to treat the

workers with more respect.''

After a Blade investigation in July highlighted the WARN

Act and its shortcomings, a host of key politicians in

Washington have addressed the need to reform the law. Among

those who have responded are Democratic U.S. Sens. Sherrod

Brown of Ohio, Hillary Clinton of New York, Edward Kennedy of

Massachusetts, John Kerry of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of

Illinois, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, and

U.S. Rep. John McHugh, a Republican from New York.

The Blade's four-part investigation showed that the WARN

Act is so full of loopholes and flaws that employers

repeatedly skirt it with little or no penalty.

The series showed that in crafting the WARN Act, Congress

didn't charge the Department of Labor with enforcing the law.

Instead, displaced workers must take their former employers

to court to uphold their rights under the law.

An analysis of 226 WARN Act lawsuits filed by employees

showed that judges threw out more than half, citing loopholes

in the law.

``Everyone on the [House Education and Labor] committee is

familiar with the Blade's excellent work on this.'' Miss

Kaptur said yesterday. ``The Blade has really done the

country a favor in helping to highlight the importance of

this legislation and to draw national attention to it.''

Mr. Miller's bill--called The Early Warning and Health Care

for Workers Affected by Globalization Act--would overhaul the

existing WARN Act by increasing the notice period from 60 to

90 days, making the law apply to more employers, increasing

financial penalties for violators, and empowering the

Department of Labor to bring lawsuits on behalf of employees.

In addition, it covers part-time employees and groups of

100 or more workers laid off by one employer at multiple job

sites.

The legislation also extends COBRA health coverage for

recipients of trade adjustment assistance, allowing workers

who are 55 or older or employees with more than 10 years of

service to an employer to use COBRA coverage until they are

eligible for Medicare.

Miss Kaptur said Mr. Miller's new proposal has support from

the ``highest levels'' of

Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.).

``There is a significant amount of momentum that has built

for this measure,'' Miss Kaptur said.

Ms. Pelosi, in a statement yesterday, said: ``For too long,

the Bush Administration has ignored the needs of workers who

are left unemployed through no fault of their own. Chairman

Miller and Congresswoman Kaptur have been relentless

champions for the cause of working men and women, and the new

legislation incorporates those concerns.''

Alex Conant, a White House spokesman, had no immediate

comment last night on Mr. Miller's WARN Act proposal, but

defended the President's record on helping workers.

``The President has aggressively fought for and delivered

tax relief for all taxpayers resulting in economic growth and

job creation,'' he said. ``The best thing Congress can do to

help workers and those seeking work is to keep taxes low to

grow our economy and create new jobs.''

Mr. Miller's bill shares some characteristics with a bill

introduced in the U.S. Senate by Mr. Brown and a bill in the

U.S. House by Mr. McHugh.

Mr. Brown's bill is co-sponsored by Ms. Clinton and Mr.

Obama, who are vying for the Democratic nomination for

president.

The proposals introduced by Mr. Brown and Mr. Hugh, both

called the FOREWARN Act, would lengthen the notification

period required before a plant closing or mass layoff,

increase penalties for violators, require more companies to

provide notice before layoffs, and allow the Department of

Labor and state attorneys general to represent workers in

lawsuits.

Julie Hurwitz, the former executive director of the Sugar

Law Center, a Detroit-based nonprofit legal center which

advocates for workers in WARN Act cases, said she is

``heartened'' by the congressional efforts to reform the law.

``These are all sorely needed revisions that have to be

made, particularly given the history of those loopholes that

have existed in the original statute giving employers all

kinds of wiggle room to essentially set their own agendas and

still not be held accountable under the original version of

the WARN Act,'' Ms. Hurwitz said.

Still, Ms. Hurwitz wants lawmakers to go a step further and

address increasingly common tactics used by employers to

evade their WARN Act duties.

``I would love to see somebody grapple with the use of

releases or waivers that are now quite frequently used by

employers to get out from any WARN Act liability or

responsibility,'' Ms. Hurwitz said.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I return the compliment to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for helping to create an atmosphere on our committee which has allowed us to make great progress in the area of trade, as evidenced by today's 39-0 vote in favor of advancing the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

The chairman and I have talked many times this year about the need to have a more viable assistance program or network of programs at the Federal level as well as in the private sector to assist workers in our country who lose their jobs through no fault of their own, who lose their jobs because of trade or because of globalization more generally. The chairman has been very good at listening to our suggestions from the minority and considering those.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the bill that is before the House today does not reflect any of our suggestions or proposals that we have shared with the majority; and that's unfortunate, although I have been assured by the chairman that as this bill works its way through the rest of the process, our ideas may yet receive consideration and perhaps inclusion. So I remain hopeful of that.

But the bill that is before us today does not contain those and it contains, I think, a number of weaknesses which compel me to not support the bill that is before the House today but instead to support a substitute which I will offer later in the debate.

In talking about the majority bill that's on the floor today as a threshold matter, and the chairman knows this because I have talked with him about it, I think we should be considering trade adjustment assistance, unemployment insurance, modification of those programs in the context of trade opportunities generally for United States workers, farmers and businesses. That is to say, I think we should be considering modifications to our assistance network in the context of the pending free trade agreements that are before the Congress and the expired trade promotion authority. Unfortunately, we are not doing that. We are considering TAA in isolation.

The alternative that I offer today would reauthorize trade adjustment assistance for 5 years. To help workers gain the skills needed to adapt to the changing global economy, our bill would restructure TAA from a predominantly income support program that offers training into a job retraining program that improves access to more flexible training and continues to provide income support, health care, and other benefits.

The contrasts between the substitute I will offer and H.R. 3920, the bill on the floor, are quite stark. For example, H.R. 3920 would pointlessly keep people in trade adjustment assistance longer. Our substitute would provide more flexible training options to get people back to work sooner, including by training before layoff and training part-time and giving people training scholarships to use over 4 years.

H.R. 3920 would increase TAA spending by billions of dollars, but would not require any further accountability on how program funds are spent. Our bill introduces some elements of accountability in that spending.

H.R. 3920 would greatly expand TAA and, I think, exacerbate the inefficiencies in the program today. Our bill would better integrate TAA and other Federal programs to make more services available to all workers.

H.R. 3920 would extend benefits to public sector workers and submit State and local officials to subpoenas and legal proceedings to comply. Our bill would maintain the focus of the program on private sector workers.

H.R. 3920 would greatly expand the health coverage tax credit, but then terminate that credit in 2 years. I don't know exactly why the majority chose to terminate this health care tax credit in 2 years. They have, in way of explanation, said that they think the current way the tax credit is structured may not be the best way to do it so they may use these 2 years to come up with another plan. That may be; but the fact is that the bill terminates the health care tax credit in 2 years. They also increase the credit from 65 percent to 85 percent which I believe is not warranted. Our substitute would increase the credit from 65 percent to 70 percent, and would continue that credit for the entire 5-year life of the bill.

There are other differences. One that we think is notable is the new markets tax credit that we would expand. We think that is a more efficient way to address communities that have been directly impacted by trade. The tax credit bonds in the majority bill we think are untested. They could be subject to abuse and uses that are not really related to impacts of trade.

I also want to express my clear opposition to how the majority pays for the $10 billion cost of their bill. First, they would delay interest allocation rules that this Congress enacted in 2004. We did that to address an unfairness for American companies that do business overseas. The effect of delaying the application of that change that we made would be to make United States companies less competitive.

Second, they would unnecessarily, in our view, increase Federal unemployment payroll taxes by extending the 0.2 percent FUTA surtax that is due to expire at the end of this year for another 3 years.

I regret that this bill does not reflect what I hoped to be our bipartisan approach to trade adjustment assistance or to our trade agenda beyond the Peru FTA, and I reluctantly will oppose it and support the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from North Carolina, I was moved by Mr. Miller's presentation a few minutes ago and would tell the Speaker, if he gets a chance, to tell the gentleman that if they would look at some of the provisions we have in our bill, it would make it, in fact, easier for all those people he is concerned about to get the training and the retraining under TAA, that those changes are not included in H.R. 3920 or in the bill that came out of Education and the Workforce.

With that, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 3920, pursuant to House Resolution 781, the amendment printed in part B of House Report 110-417 be modified by the form I've placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time for each side.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. CAMP of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I understand how people can get emotional about some of the arguments with respect to these bills. My good friend from New Jersey is clearly agitated, and I understand that. But I would tell him that some very good lawyers have looked at the language in the bill, which is different from current law language with respect to providing benefits to illegal immigrants. And categories two and three, which the gentleman cited, ``lawfully present in the United States'' or ``permanently residing in the United States under color of law,'' do present problems. First, there are multiple definitions of what ``lawfully present'' means in current law and regulation. Even more fundamentally, literally millions of students and tourists and other ``nonimmigrants'' are ``lawfully present'' in the United States each year. The provision in the bill appears intended to make these groups eligible for TAA benefits despite their not being authorized to work in the United States in the first place.

And the category of ``permanently residing under color of law'' is still more problematic. Even though the welfare reform law sought to do away with this ambiguous category, it continues to be used in some programs. SAA regulations, for example, define PRUCOL, permanently residing in the United States under color of law, to include, among other categories, ``aliens living in the United States with the knowledge and permission of the INS/CIS and whose departure that agency does not contemplate enforcing.'' That is, those who are illegally present and who could be deported but are not. This category could include individuals who were originally authorized to work in the United States for a temporary period of time, lost that job, and under current law were supposed to leave the United States but remained despite the requirement that they leave. It could also include individuals who enter the United States illegally in the first place who are known to the government to be here but who are not being deported.

So, Mr. Speaker, I understand how we can all get emotional about this, but the fact is, at least according to the lawyers that have looked at this information and advised us, the bill does loosen current law with respect to verifying that people who are here illegally are not due the benefits. As the gentleman said, it appears that the intent of the bill is not to qualify those people, but the language of the bill, unfortunately, according to some very good lawyers, might, indeed, allow qualification for those who are here illegally.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't intend to get into all of that. But the fact is that the bill that is before us, I believe, goes way too far in spending, way too far in increasing taxes, and, for those two things alone, should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment I offer, along with Mr. McKeon, is a substitute for the bill that is before the House this afternoon.

Our amendment would reform and reauthorize for 5 years the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, and we believe our substitute would strengthen and improve not only TAA but the Workforce Investment Act program as well.

Our bill would better equip workers affected by trade, globalization, and other causes of job loss with the skills needed to adjust to changes in the global economy.

Our Republican alternative consists of four related pieces of legislation separately introduced this year. Some of these are under the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee; others are under the jurisdiction of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Among other things, our bill would provide more flexible training options to get people into training sooner and back to good jobs more quickly. For example, we've heard some discussion about the plant closing notice. The bill before the House this afternoon would expand the amount of time from 60 days to 90 days that a plant company would have to give notice to employees of either plant closure or a substantial layoff at that plant.

Under the current constriction of TAA, a worker in that plant wishing to, perhaps, go to job training at night after he gets off work, waiting for the expiration of the 60-day notice or the 90-day notice could not qualify for TAA training benefits. Our substitute would correct that and allow that worker to take advantage of trade adjustment assistance while he is still working in that plant that he knows is going to be closed and where he would lose his job.

Number two, our bill would continue the health coverage tax credit over our bill's 5-year life and increase the premium subsidy from 65 percent to 70 percent. Mr. Levin earlier talked about how the current 65-percent credit has not been enough to entice a high number of laid- off workers under TAA to claim that credit and get their health care, their health insurance through that method, and he is right. The take- up rate on this benefit has been lower than we expected, and so some adjustment is necessary. Whether that adjustment, the appropriate one to provide the right level of enticement, is 70 percent, or in their bill 85 percent, we don't know. We are willing to go up on that. We think it is appropriate to do that. We've included 70 percent in our bill. And the House should know that that means that a person who is laid off and who is eligible for trade adjustment assistance can get, under our substitute, 70 percent of the premium paid by the government. So, that laid-off worker would only have to come up with 30 percent of the premium to continue coverage under COBRA or to get some other qualified insurance plan.

Number three, our bill would convert the wage insurance pilot program for older workers into a transitional wage supplement for all TAA workers, regardless of their age. It would be allowed for any worker who became reemployed at low wages, low wages being defined as minimum wage plus $2.40 an hour, and allow them to obtain, at the same time they were getting this wage supplement, the health care tax credit and additional trade adjustment training, which right now, if a person goes back to work, under TAA he is not eligible for those benefits. So our bill would expand the availability of the health care tax credit and job training under TAA for people who go back to work and who are receiving a wage supplement.

Number four, our bill would require indicators of performance to evaluate the Trade Adjustment Assistance programs and their results. Currently, TAA programs have no measure of performance, no way for us to tell if these programs are being effective or if taxpayer dollars are being wasted. Our bill would put in place those indicators of performance to give us the idea of the efficiency of these programs.

Number five, in provisions affecting the unemployment insurance program, our bill would allow States to apply for cost-neutral waivers of current rules to operate wage insurance and other demonstration programs to better assist unemployed workers in returning to work.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard some in opposition to the Republican substitute say that this would allow States to do away with their unemployment insurance benefits. We certainly didn't intend that in our substitute; we don't think that the language would allow that. But in any event, a State would have to get a waiver from the executive branch to take advantage of these provisions, and I doubt seriously if any executive branch under any President would allow a State to just do away with its unemployment insurance benefits. So, I don't really think that's a valid argument in opposition to this increased flexibility that could assist unemployed workers.

And number six, our bill also creates a new trade-related category for qualification under the new markets tax credit. Businesses and communities experiencing adverse economic effects due to trade would qualify for an additional $500 million of new markets tax credits. These tax credits, we believe, would bring significant amounts of private capital into these economically disadvantaged areas to create jobs to replace those that had been lost due to trade.

Mr. Speaker, we believe this substitute is a much more cost-effective approach than that contained in H.R. 3920 and would help all Americans, not just those who lose jobs to trade, get the skills needed to find productive new jobs.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to Mr. McKeon, I want to

point out that the underlying bill, as described by my friend from Washington, does, indeed, double, and then even later triples, the TAA training budget when nearly $300 million of the current budget lies unused. That's just an example of how we think the underlying bill that we oppose goes way too far in expanding this program needlessly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee. I'm sorry, I've been calling it the Education and Workforce Committee. My apologies to the chairman and to the members of that committee. It is now the Education and Labor Committee, and Mr. McKeon is the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Republican substitute before the House at this time does not eviscerate anything, much less the TAA program which is reauthorized in the substitute for 5 years exactly as it is. The benefits are the same. The amounts are the same. I don't know where the last speaker got his information, but the substitute certainly does not eviscerate the TAA program. It reauthorizes the existing program for 5 years. Then, in addition, we make some changes in the law that allow those benefits under the TAA to be used in instances where under current law they can't be used, and I have described one of those already in my earlier presentation.

So I hope this House doesn't get the wrong impression about this substitute. It certainly endorses the TAA program. We are for the TAA program. We think it is important. But we think our bill gives a lot more flexibility that is needed in the program and some accountability in the program that is needed. In addition to that, we do provide additional funds in our bill, and it is paid for under the PAYGO rules of the House. I just wanted to make that clear.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, unless the cavalry comes riding over the hill, I only have one remaining speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that service workers today are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, and that is the primary form of income support under TAA. But to expand to service workers all of the other array of benefits under the TAA may be premature.

In a bill that passed this Congress and was signed by the President earlier this year, there was a mandate for a study to look at service workers and the impact of trade on service workers. We don't yet have, obviously, the results of that study, so it may be premature to just willy-nilly offer all these benefits to service workers.

And while Mr. Moran spoke about some projection of losses of service worker jobs over the next 10 or so years, in an April 2007 paper, the Peterson Institute for International Economics evaluated data on the extent of the impact of off-shoring on service sector labor markets in the United States, and their review of the data concluded that just under 1 million American service workers lost their jobs from 2004 to 2005 due to mass layoffs of 50 or more employees, while 8 million service sector jobs were created during that time. And of those 1 million jobs lost, only about 4 percent could be attributed to off- shoring or offshore outsourcing.

So I think the question of the impact of trade on the service sector is certainly an open one, and the House may be well advised to wait for the results of the study that we mandated in previous legislation that passed this year.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the remarks of my friend from Washington, I would point out that using Bureau of Labor statistics, the average cost of training under current law is only $3,000. So the $8,000 New Economy Scholarship in our substitute more than doubles the amount available.

In the case of remedial education, the scholarship amounts to an extra $1,000, nearly tripling the average cost of training.

The most common provider of occupational training is the local community or technical college. The limit of $8,000 over 2 years is significantly greater than the average cost of a 2-year program at a community college, and is similar to limits that apply to other Federal postsecondary assistance.

Under current law, Mr. Speaker, while there is no specific monetary limit, as there is in our substitute, the cost of training must be reasonable and that reasonableness is decided by the various States. So the amount that is available is subject to judgment and to uncertainty. Our substitute removes that uncertainty so that a person knows going in how much he is going to have to spend on training.

Our substitute significantly enhances access to training by removing additional eligibility criteria and allowing people who do get new jobs to use the training benefit unlike current law. So we expand current law in that regard with respect to training benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman from Washington has listened to my rebuttal and is convinced now that we don't gut the training benefits in TAA. If he is not, though, if he will vote for the substitute, I look forward to working with him to smooth out the complaints that he has.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just one more time to try to rebut the characterization of the other side of our substitute with respect to training.

The information that we have, and we think it is reliable, is that no State ran out of training money, but obviously the majority has different information and at some point during the process we would love to sit down with them and examine their data and our information to see if there is some way to reconcile those and arrive at a conclusion that we both can embrace. We have not had that opportunity other than the limited debate we had in committee and now here on the floor, and we are hearing the same thing on the floor we heard in committee and so we haven't reconciled those differences. But clearly there are differences in the data that each of us thinks is reliable.

I would be happy to yield.

Yes. As I said, I think each side has information that it deems reliable, but we have attempted to try to reconcile those two different sets of data. I am hopeful we will do that before this process is over.

Absolutely.

Absolutely. I do understand that. We, of course, as you know, question the need right now to include all those additional people, as I have talked about before, with respect to services workers.

But our substitute with respect to the universe of people presently covered under law by the Trade Adjustment Assistance, we think the training money in our substitute is more than adequate to cover the needs of that population with respect to training.

Mr. Speaker, I have one remaining speaker. The gentleman from Washington only has 2 minutes remaining, but are you ready to close?

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I'll close for our side.

Oh, well, thank you for the kind offer. I'm happy to close at this time, Mr. Speaker.

I think we've had a good debate today on the different approaches that the majority and minority have at this point on the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. We certainly understand the importance of providing an array of benefits to people in this country who lose their jobs because of trade, and certainly Chairman Rangel and I have talked and agreed that it's necessary for Congress to take action and to make sure that people in this country know that as we expand trade, that the benefits of trade expansion will be uneven. And there will be some in this country who will lose their jobs because of that expansion of trade, and we need to be prepared to assure those people that we will help them give them that helping hand to lift them up after they've lost that job and find training, education, whatever is necessary to get them a new job if they desire, and in the meantime give them benefits that will allow them to take care of themselves and their families.

So we agree on the importance of this program. I had hoped we would have had more give-and-take over the last couple of months with respect to crafting a bipartisan approach to reauthorizing the program, not only because the program was originally a bipartisan program, but also because we are trying, some of us on both sides of the aisle are trying to rebuild that bipartisan coalition for the expansion of trade around the world, knocking down trade barriers to our goods and services, to make the playing field more level for United States producers of products and services. And as we attempt to create or recreate that bipartisan coalition for the expansion of trade, we understand that one leg of that effort has got to be reauthorizing and strengthening not only TAA, but perhaps even going beyond the current universe of beneficiaries of a Trade Adjustment Assistance program and looking at enhancing the benefits of all workers who lose their jobs, not just because of trade but perhaps due to things that are more in the rubric of globalization but not specifically trade.

So I'm glad that we have this bill before the House today. I'm hopeful that we can reauthorize in some form this very important program before the end of this year. I regret that I cannot support the majority bill that's on the floor today. I think we have offered a reasonable substitute and I'm hopeful that the House will adopt our substitute, and then as the process moves through the Senate and to the President, we can perhaps refine that product some more and get a bipartisan agreement.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in opposition to this bill.

The legislation before us is supposed to be about reforming the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. As flawed as the underlying TAA provisions are, their weaknesses are amplified by the inclusion of separate, largely unrelated legislation that moved through the Education and Labor Committee.

That bill, which has been folded into the larger TAA package, modifies the WARN Act and COBRA, two statutes that were not even designed to help workers impacted by globalization get the tools and training they needed to get back to work.

We've heard time and again that in order to effectively respond to competitive challenges we need to bolster our education and training systems to better prepare current and future workers for success.

Unfortunately, the provisions inserted into the broader TAA bill take a different approach. Instead of offering proactive solutions that will allow American workers to compete and thrive, these policies do nothing more than layer on additional Federal red tape for employers while offering only incremental provisions for workers that would do nothing to help them adjust to the changing workplace.

The proposal for a massive expansion of the WARN Act would be incredibly burdensome for employers struggling to keep pace with a changing economy. The limitations of this proposal do not match the real-world scenarios in which employers may be shifting their workforce to meet changing needs.

The bill mandates a full 90 days' notice before a plant closure or other mass layoff, requiring employers to remain stagnant for a full fiscal quarter before adjusting their workforce. This, despite the fact that in order to keep and create jobs here at home, employers need a workforce that is flexible and adaptable. Layered on top of that unworkable time frame is a requirement that double damages be paid by any employer unable to comply. This would create a system that is more focused on punishing employers than truly helping workers who lose their jobs.

Similarly, the selective expansion of COBRA availability seems to focus more on compliance and red tape than on offering genuine solutions to workers who need assistance and retraining as a result of globalization. It creates an unfair system in which not all workers who lose their jobs would have access to the same health care options. The bill uses TAA eligibility as a trigger for expanded COBRA coverage but extends the coverage almost indefinitely. This is inconsistent with existing COBRA eligibility and inconsistent with other TAA benefits.

The Education and Labor Committee convened a hearing in March to examine the impact of international trade on American workers. The challenges we considered during that hearing are the same challenges we appear to be attempting to address today. Yet during that hearing, not a single witness suggested or endorsed these bloated, bureaucratic WARN Act and COBRA proposals.

We all know that American companies must be flexible and dynamic in order to keep pace with their competition overseas. These proposals would put American companies at a distinct disadvantage, preventing them from maintaining an agile workforce and undermining efforts to preserve American jobs or create new ones because of the burden and cost of compliance with these new mandates.

If we're serious about assisting dislocated workers and keeping America competitive, the Education and Labor Committee has a crucial role to play. We should be renewing our one-stop job training system authorized under the Workforce Investment Act. Unfortunately, Democrats have stalled our efforts to strengthen and improve job training, failing to even introduce a bill to extend and enhance WIA.

Republicans are committed to keeping America competitive in the global economy. Later today, I will join with Representative McCrery, the senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, to offer a comprehensive approach to assist Americans adversely affected by trade.

The increased employer burdens proposed through an expansion of the WARN Act and COBRA are nothing more than a distraction from the real debate we ought to be having. I oppose these costly, arduous provisions because they move in exactly the wrong direction. Instead of fostering competitiveness and job creation, they will breed litigation and stagnation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions ranking member, with jurisdiction over COBRA, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for such time as he may consume.

May I inquire of the Speaker what time is left.

Do you have more speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, we know that there have been job losses due to trade, there have been job losses due to technology improvements. There are other different reasons why jobs are lost, and we all feel the pain of those who have lost their jobs.

Having said that, the answer is not increased bureaucracy and increased problems that employers have to deal with in providing jobs and in coming up with new technology to create new jobs. The answer would be to streamline, to cut back the bureaucracy, yes, to give temporary help to workers that have been displaced, to give them the opportunity to get additional job training so that they can prepare for other occupations, and then to try to spread that pain across the country instead of just having it targeted on those specific plans.

We will offer later an amendment to this bill, a substitute, that will do just that. In the meantime, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against additional bureaucracy and to vote against expanded government intrusion into the marketplace that causes these disruptions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You know, it has been 9 years since Congress last reauthorized the Workforce Investment Act, known as WIA. We made dramatic improvements through the last reauthorization, strengthening the nationwide system of one-stop training centers where workers can access a variety of training services.

I remember not too long after we did that, two of the displaced workers in my district, we've lost many jobs for aerospace workers, two of them came up to me and thanked me for having done this because they had been able to go back and get vouchers, receive additional training. One of them was becoming a teacher and one was going to be a computer operator. And we've seen many people benefit from that program. But as yet, it has not been reauthorized this year.

The system has served job seekers well. WIA now integrates employment and training services at the local level in a more unified workforce development system, which it did not do prior to the 1998 reforms. Yet, without renewal today, it cannot possibly keep pace with the rapidly changing needs of workers in a dynamic economy.

Earlier this month, Republicans unveiled a comprehensive road map for reforming both job training and higher education. The Higher Education Act and WIA each play a critical role in keeping Americans competitive by developing the skills and knowledge necessary in a changing economy. Unfortunately, Democrats have not offered proposals to strengthen either of these critical programs.

I am pleased to be joining Representative McCrery today in offering a proposal that links our job training reforms with the renewal of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. These proposals work hand in hand to provide dislocated workers the type of responsive, flexible training and assistance they need to get back to work.

Our proposal will strengthen WIA's infrastructure, eliminate duplication and waste, increase accountability, enhance the role of employers, and increase the State and local flexibility. Together, these reforms will ensure the Nation's workforce development system can respond quickly and effectively to the changing needs of job seekers and those in need of training.

The time for job training is long overdue. The Department of Labor has made efforts to allow flexibility and creativity within the existing system, and numerous stakeholders have proposed innovative new strategies. However, this type of reform has been hampered because Congress has failed to act.

One of the most important steps we can take to strengthen our job training system is to increase program efficiency and focus on results. We must eliminate duplication and redundancy and create a more seamless system that can be flexible based on changing needs.

Our amendment will eliminate current barriers to effective programs and services. We will enhance the services offered to job seekers, providing greater flexibility and eliminating arbitrary requirements that prevent some workers from getting the services they need.

We also plan to restore long-standing hiring protections to faith- based organizations in order to ensure that they are able to participate fully in the job training system.

To foster regional economic development, the Republican plan would allow regional areas to integrate workforce development programs, one- stop services, and community and economic development funds into a comprehensive workforce development system.

Finally, our plan would strengthen programs targeted towards specific populations, improving adult education, vocational rehabilitation, and youth programs.

Mr. Speaker, I support trade adjustment assistance, and I support its extension and renewal.

I want to recognize Representative McCrery for his leadership on this important issue. Our amendment will better integrate TAA with other Federal programs to more effectively equip workers affected by trade, globalization and other causes of job loss with skills they need to adapt to the changing global economy. It will join these TAA improvements to long-overdue job training reforms. We need to update these programs to be competitive worldwide.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the Republican substitute, which will provide a comprehensive approach to helping keep America competitive.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the typical income of American households has actually declined between 2002 and 2006 in inflation-adjusted terms. Last year, the number of Americans without health insurance actually increased by over 2 million.

For years now, Americans have had to deal with stagnating incomes and rising costs for basics like health care, food, energy and housing. For many reasons, Americans are deeply concerned about the future of their economy and their place in it. One cause of

their concern is the negative consequences they see from international trade.

Indeed, Americans find themselves increasingly caught in the crosshairs of the global economy. They have watched neighbors, friends and loved ones lose their jobs when plants close and move overseas. Americans have become even more skeptical about trade agreements, and for good reason. They have watched jobs move to China, and in return they get lead-poisoned toys.

Given these very real concerns, it is critical that we include in trade agreements strong and enforceable labor and environmental protections. And we must provide substantial assistance to workers who are negatively affected by this trade.

On the first part, I want to thank the committee for what they have done in terms of the trade agreements with these labor and environmental protections and I want to thank them for this legislation today.

This legislation we are considering addresses this very important point of what happens to those workers who have the negative consequences of international trade. This legislation helps ensure that displaced workers can help make ends meet while they find a new job, or in the case of older workers, until they reach retirement age.

The bill requires a layoff or plant closing notification if 50 or more employees, including part-time employees, at a single job site are laid off in a 30-day period. It eliminates a loophole that has allowed employers to avoid giving notices by shifting employees around job sites.

The bill increases notice to employees of a plant closing or mass layoff from 60 to 90 days, and that is very important.

And it also says that TAA-eligible employees can extend their COBRA coverage for as long as they remain TAA-eligible, up to 2\1/2\ years. And TAA-eligible employees who are 55 years or older and who have worked for an employer for more than 10 years can extend their COBRA coverage until they are eligible for Medicare at age 65, or covered by another health care plan. The coverage is available to workers today, but only up to 18 months. The bill extends that provision.

This is the most important provision for those workers who lose their income and lose their job, trying to hold their families together, and also see the loss of their health care. COBRA is of no cost to the government. The employee must pay the employer share, the employee share, and the 2 percent administrative cost. Over 40 million Americans have used COBRA coverage. But in any given year, only 2 to 3 million Americans are on the program, and close to 200,000 people are losing that coverage every month. This is an important benefit to these workers and certainly to people who have preexisting conditions and know they will not be able to go in and find insurance that they can afford or that is even available to them.

It is important that we make certain that these older workers are able to bridge the time until they reach Medicare eligibility so they will have continuity of health care.

This is good legislation. I hope my colleagues on the floor will support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

We could leave this to the marketplace, and you could throw your workers out on the street with no notice, no health care, no training, and that's it, and just tell them, welcome to the globalized world.

We thought we would try a different tack. We thought we would give workers notice where it is practical for employers to do so so the worker would have time to deal with the implications of a lost job on their family, to try to save their home, to try to save their kids' education, try to save the automobile, figure out how to get another job or how to get to retirement.

We also know that many workers that are released don't have health care coverage or can't get it in the marketplace. So we extended COBRA. We made that decision many years ago. Forty million people have used that to get them to another health care plan or to hold on to their coverage as long as they possibly could. We said for older workers, you can take it to Medicare. If you are over 55 years old and you have worked there 10 years, you can use COBRA. You pay all the premiums, you pay the administrative cost, but at least you have coverage. For some people, that's absolutely vital, because once they lose coverage, they can't get it again because they can't afford it or because they have preexisting conditions and they won't write that policy for those individuals.

This is just about whether or not we are going to treat Americans with some sense of decency who work all year long, provide for their families, work hard, play by the rules or whether they are just going to have to crash to the street and lose their income, their houses, their cars, their kids' education. That's the choice we get today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this substitute and in strong support of the underlying legislation.

I really want to say that I think that this is the bare minimum that a society and a government can do for those members of our society that find themselves in a situation, really through no fault of their own, that they suffer job loss because of a decision that is made to close a facility or to transfer their job overseas.

What we have now seen over the last decade is that there has been a huge impact in families all across this country, in all different parts of the region of this country, that have been economically severely displaced, that have had to scramble to try and get job training, to get health care, to get a new job, to get a new profession, to get a new occupation. At first, people thought it was only limited to those who did hot, heavy, dirty, nasty jobs. But that is not the case. What we see is, with the continued trend toward globalization and outsourcing, that it can impact all different classes of Americans.

But at a minimum, what we ought to do is make sure that those people have some ability to make a transition to that new job, to that new profession, to retirement if they are older workers, and not risk losing everything that they built up during the time that they were holding their jobs. They should not be in a position where they are scrambling to try to find health care, job training, saving their home, maybe their kids' education, and maybe even the car they need to go to work. Too often, that is what happens in this country because of the inadequacies of these underlying laws. Trade assistance over the last decade, WIA over the last decade, have not provided comprehensive services for these workers that they can fully engage in.

We need these kinds of changes that are presented by the committee bill coming out of Ways and Means. I believe we need the notification provisions that came out of the Education and Labor Committee, and clearly we need an extension of the COBRA benefits for people who find themselves in great jeopardy of not only temporarily losing health care, but very likely permanently losing health care until they are eligible for Medicare because they may have health conditions that are preexisting and it is either so expensive to get an individual policy or people won't write that policy for them, for whatever excuses they have to cover up the idea of a preexisting condition.

So this is a basic fundamental compact between this government that has made a decision, I think properly so, to engage the rest of the world through trade agreements and globalization, but we have to look at what happens here at home. These trade agreements are now being strengthened through the good work of Mr. Rangel and the committee and Mr. Levin and others, to provide for ILO labor standards overseas so we can compete on a fairer basis with workers overseas, with environmental standards so we don't let them subsidize products by just dumping toxins into the rivers and bays and oceans.

This is an important piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, what makes America work is America's workers.

Today, America is going to work harder to protect its workers. We currently have a program that was put together in the middle of the night in 2002 in the midst of the fast track legislation, and it was never intended to work.

This bill provides protection for almost double the number of workers covered by that program. This measure before us also improves a more basic protection for all jobless workers, unemployment insurance. Only one-third of America's unemployed now receive unemployment benefits, and coverage rates for low-wage and part-time workers are considerably lower.

This bill provides up to $7 billion to States implementing specific policies designed to eliminate unnecessary barriers. We ask States to count a worker's most recent wages when determining their eligibility. We ask States to end discrimination against part-time workers. And we ask them not to disqualify workers who must leave work for compelling family reasons like domestic violence or taking care of a sick child or following a spouse whose job has moved.

These are State options. We are not requiring them to do anything. If they don't want it, they don't have to have the money. But we are giving them the opportunity to take care of their unemployed workers. The improvements promise to provide unemployment benefits to over half a million jobless workers if adopted in every State. Women particularly stand to gain from this bill because they are more likely to work in part-time or low-wage jobs and are more likely to leave for family reasons. The cost of supporting these reforms is fully offset by extending an unemployment tax that has been on the books for 30 years, and that President Bush is specifically asking us to continue. Any talk about increasing taxes is simply empty rhetoric from the other side. They know it, because the last time it was extended, they did it on their watch.

Mr. Speaker, a vote in favor of this bill should be the easiest vote that

every Member of Congress takes this year.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my Republican colleagues for proposing a substitute today. It's healthy for America to see two different views on how we should help dislocated workers.

Democrats want to help more workers who lose their jobs because of trade, especially workers providing services. The Republican substitute says no to helping those workers.

Democrats want to assure more dislocated workers have an opportunity to receive training. The Republican substitute would, instead, cap the amount of training any worker can receive, not to go on and finish a program.

Democrats want to assure health care coverage is affordable for workers losing their jobs by paying 85 percent of their premium. The Republican substitute said, well, 65 wasn't enough, but we'll give you 70. So again, they cut the workers short.

Democrats want a better wage insurance program to help trade-affected workers who are reemployed in jobs that pay less than their prior employment. The Republican substitute guts the program as it presently exists and instead only provides a benefit to those at the very lowest wage jobs.

Republicans don't care if workers have a chance to get a living-wage job; they want to force people back to minimum-wage jobs. Democrats want to help States improve unemployment insurance for all workers who are denied unfairly their benefits, especially women. The Republican substitute goes in the opposite direction by allowing the administration to approve waivers from States that could deny more jobless workers unemployment insurance.

In short, the Democrats want to help workers navigate the global economy. The Republican substitute, on the other hand, tells workers, well, you're still, more or less, on your own.

After this substitute is defeated, I'm hopeful that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will ultimately join us in passing a bill to assist America's workers when they lose their jobs through no fault of their own.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Hodes of New Hampshire.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Higgins of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mrs. McCarthy of New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Louisiana keeps worrying about the fact that we are mischaracterizing his amendment. I want to take a specific because the whole question of putting a cap on training benefits is a cut in benefits from what we presently have. The unworkable thing that was in the law before, when you cap at $4,000 the amount per year that a worker can get, a total of $8,000 over a 2-year period, in Minnesota and Maine, 50 percent of the workers spend $10,000. Thirty percent of the TAA workers in Pennsylvania spend more than $15,000 over 10 years. Twenty-five percent of the people in South Carolina spend over $15,000. Eighty percent of the workers in Nebraska spend more than $10,000.

Now, when you put that cap on there, you are saying to a 45- or 50- year-old worker who used to make 35, 40, 45, 50, $55,000, we are not going to give you sufficient money to really retrain for a job that you had equivalent in pay before. You are saying whatever you can get for four grand, fine, that's it. But if it takes more than that, well, you're on your own.

This bill is designed to try and help workers who were the middle class in this country, people who were making livable wages. Now, you also say in your bill that your wage insurance, it used to be in the present bill if you were over 50 and your job was making less than $50,000 a year, you could receive up to an additional $5,000 if you took a job that paid less than you were making before.

Now, what you've done in this bill, in this amendment you offer, you say we will give you a minimum wage job, and if you don't make an additional $2.40 above that minimum wage in your State, then we will sort of give you a little cushion up to that $2.40. That is pushing people to low-wage jobs. You are taking those $50,000-a-year people who were working in auto factories and working in manufacturing jobs across this country and you are saying, go out and get yourself a minimum wage job and we'll give you an extra $2.40 an hour. My, aren't we generous.

And you understand why we talk about you gutting what miserable program you put in place in the first place.

This bill that we have put together here today is one that will allow States, and the reason why we put additional money in for training is no one could use it before. They will under our bill.

I wish you and I could have a debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Sestak, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Would the gentleman yield?

You will concede that the Department of Labor says that no State ran out of money, but that GAO said that nine States ran out of money, that there is an argument about how the States keep their books, will you not?

I hope you understand we put in more money because we hoped to cover more people.

If we change some of the regulations, it will be more accessible to people.

Mr. Speaker, do you have the right to close? I think you have the right to close.

We have the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time that we have to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.