Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3920) to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, to extend trade adjustment assistance to service workers and firms, and for other purposes.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and on this beautiful day in our Nation's Capital, I wish you and our colleagues a Happy Halloween and say that it is an honor to be here on what is a very important piece of legislation.

I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and want to congratulate him on his very thoughtful statement and say that I consider him to be one of the most able Members of the new class that has come in. I hope my saying that doesn't jeopardize his standing in the Democratic Caucus, but I do appreciate his hard work on the Rules Committee.

I was prepared, Madam Speaker, to rise in support of this rule, but I've decided to oppose the rule, and the reason I've decided to oppose the rule is not the fact that we, for the first time in the 110th Congress, have a substitute made in order on a bill that has come forth from the Committee on Ways and Means. I should say at the outset that last night our colleague Mr. Hastings of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, said that there was only one instance in the 109th Congress where an amendment was made in order by the then-majority for the consideration of a Ways and Means Committee bill, when, in fact, we researched that overnight and found that there were five instances, five instances in the 109th Congress where our majority, in fact, made in order an amendment to a Ways and Means Committee bill.

Madam Speaker, I would, at this point, include in the Record that statement which outlines those measures that we have put forward.

Bills referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

considered under ``structured'' or ``modified closed'' rules

in the 109th Congress:

1. H.R. 8--Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2005.

2. H.R. 6--Energy Policy Act of 2005.

3. H.R. 4297--Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act of

2005.

4. H.R. 4437--Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal

Immigration Control Act of 2005.

5. H.R. 4157--Health Information Technology Promotion Act

of 2005.

Madam Speaker, so I do say that here we are on Halloween for the first time in this 10-month period of time having a substitute made in order, and I was, as I said, prepared to support the rule, but I've decided to oppose it. I decided to oppose it because of an article that I read in the Roll Call this morning which made it very clear that the Democratic majority is once again going down a path that they abandoned last summer, I'm happy to say, but they've unfortunately brought it to the forefront again, and that is the notion of casting aside the opportunity for the single bite at the apple that the minority has, and that is to offer the motion to recommit on measures.

Now, I know, Madam Speaker, that's a very inside baseball discussion, but our colleagues know that the motion to recommit is something that was often denied the Republican minority during the four decades before 1994, and when we won the majority in 1994, we made it very clear that we would, in fact, guarantee the minority, guarantee the minority a right to a motion to recommit, meaning at least one bite at the apple on a measure, even if all amendments were denied.

Now, this report has come forward that the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter of

Rochester, New York, is in the midst of a discussion, and she said in this quote in the paper that she wants to not say that it is imminent but she wants to get it right, getting it right, shutting down the opportunity for the minority to have that single opportunity to address an issue in the bill. And so the mere fact that this has come to the forefront again, Madam Speaker, has led me to come to the conclusion that I can't be supportive of this rule that we're debating here today.

I will say that I am in opposition to the underlying legislation itself, but as I said, I'm very happy that we have the opportunity to debate a minority substitute for a major package from the Committee on Ways and Means.

Now, I mention this nearly 1-year period of time we've gone through, completed 10 months here, and we saw at the beginning of the Congress this wonderful document that I'm sure you've seen, Madam Speaker, that was put forward by Speaker Pelosi. It's entitled ``A New Direction for America.'' Now, in this document, she says that basically every measure that is considered here on the House floor, and I quote from this document. It says, ``should include procedure that allows an open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

Now, Madam Speaker, that was what was stated by Speaker Pelosi at the beginning of this Congress, and today, Halloween 2007, October 31, marks the first time, the first time in the 110th Congress that this opportunity for the minority has been availed us.

I will say that we have repeatedly considered in the Rules Committee Ways and Means measures, and we have repeatedly asked for a minority substitute to be made in order so that our constituents, and this has nothing to do simply with party, this has to do with the right of each Member of Congress who represents 600,000 and some people to have their opportunity to be heard here. Unfortunately, throughout this entire year, up until this point, every request for that minority substitute has, unfortunately, been denied.

I am happy that we are finally, today, allowing what I know will be a very thoughtful substitute that will be debated by my California colleague, Mr. McKeon, the ranking Republican on the Committee on Education and Labor, as well as the ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, our friend from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

I do commend my colleagues on the Rules Committee, the majority on the Rules Committee, for taking this first step. I hope very much that it is a sign of a new day at the Rules Committee. I hope that we will have this greater transparency, openness and bipartisanship which we were promised at the beginning of this year.

The underlying bill was actually a good place to start with this, in part, because the issue in question is so important, and, in part, because the proposal that has been reported from the Ways and Means Committee is in such dire need of improvement, that's why I believe that this substitute is one which should be able to enjoy very strong bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, as you know very well, and you have been involved in the trade debate since you have come to the Congress, and I suspect you were probably interested in it even before you came to the Congress, the issue of trade adjustment assistance is a very, very critical and important and a very well-intentioned program that does need to be reformed and modernized in order to effectively help American workers compete in the worldwide marketplace. My friend from Vermont talked very thoughtfully about the issue of globalization and the fact that we have seen a dramatic improvement in our gross domestic product growth.

In fact, just this morning, I know it surprised many, we got the report that we have a 3.9 percent GDP growth rate annualized, the report that came from the Commerce Department this morning, demonstrating that opening up new markets and developing opportunities for U.S. workers and consumers has, in fact, been a positive. I will acknowledge, and I know we are going to be hearing a lot of sob stories through this debate, and, frankly, I am sympathetic with those sob stories, the stories about people who have been victimized by trade.

But I have got to say that one of the sad things that I have observed in the debate on trade is that it is blamed for virtually every ailment of society. In fact, I often am reminded of the fact that one time a constituent came up to me a couple of years ago and said we didn't have a single illegal immigrant coming from Mexico into the United States until you passed the North American Free Trade Agreement.

We know very well that the North American Free Trade Agreement has actually created a third of a trillion dollars in cross-border trade between the United States and Mexico. I argue that the problem of illegal immigration would have been dramatically worsened had we not put into place the trade agreement which has improved the quality of life and the standard of living in both countries.

I will say that the middle-class population in Mexico today is larger than the entire Canadian population, and that is by virtue of the fact that we have seen economic growth take place in Mexico that is a by- product of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

But having said all of that, as we will continue to rage on with the debate on the benefits of trade as we face, I hope, in the coming weeks and months the trade agreements for Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea, I will recognize that there are some sectors of our society that have not benefited from trade, and that's why we are here today. We are here today to recognize that it is very, very important for us to do everything possible to address the concerns of those workers who have been negatively impacted by trade.

Unfortunately, what the Democrats have done is to take an inefficient program and compound the inefficiencies and inadequacies and block all efforts to build more accountability into the system, which we all believe is very important. Then they intend to self-execute the fusion of this ill-advised proposal with another bill that imposes massive new regulations on American job creators. Perhaps most troubling is that this bill opens the door for TAA benefits to be granted to illegal immigrants. If we look at that problem, potentially having illegal immigrants benefiting from the program, if we look at the regulatory burden which is going to impinge on those who are creating jobs, I think we have got to recognize that we have a lot of work to do on that. I believe the substitute is the best answer.

The Democratic majority has tried to distract us all from the mess they have created by throwing billions of dollars at the problem. Of course, since money sadly does not grow on trees, the Democratic majority has once again resorted to raising taxes to pay for their boondoggle that won't actually do what they claim, in this case helping American workers deal with job loss. In fact, by saddling businesses, large, medium and small, with hefty new regulations, they are further diminishing our economic competitiveness and, in fact, exacerbating the problem that they purport to address with the measure that they have brought forward.

How the Democratic majority can say with a straight face that they want to help workers and yet are determined to shut down the job creators is beyond me. Whoever said irony was dead should just turn to C-SPAN. It's alive and well here on the House floor.

The challenges facing Americans in 2007 are very, very different than the challenges of just a few years ago, let alone when the TAA was established. Fundamentally, we are still striving for the same things we always have, good jobs that allow us to provide for our families and ensure a better life for our children. But we are achieving these goals in very different ways, and facing very different obstacles. The reality is that opportunity and challenge often go hand in hand.

One enterprising young entrepreneur may be very successful at tapping into the global economy, finding clients and contractors all over the world, allowing businesses to grow here at home and creating lots of good, well-paying jobs for Americans. But the company down the street might not navigate the effects of globalization so successfully. It may find itself struggling to compete with Indian software designers or

Polish manufacturers or Australian marketing firms. The opportunities are limitless, but the challenges are broad-based. Limiting our focus to just those whose jobs are directly impacted by trade is a hopelessly narrow and simplistic approach. Trade is just one factor in the ever- churning economy that we face.

As I said, unfortunately, there is this tendency by many, the moment they witness any kind of change, the moment they witness any kind of displacement, the moment they witness any kind of problem at all, they want to blame it on trade, and that is just plain wrong.

There are new technologies growing exponentially and changing the nature of jobs and job creation irreversibly.

There are new competitors halfway across the globe that are in the marketplace whether we trade with them or not. There are 100 million Chinese workers who have been lifted out of abject poverty and are entering the middle class for the first time ever. Madam Speaker, you know as a proponent of trade that these are all good things, but we have to change our thinking in a very broad way if we don't want to drown in a sea of changes that we aren't prepared to navigate.

We need better math and science education from kindergarten all the way up. We need to make adult continuing education a part of everyday life. We need to enhance the financial literacy of American families. We need an economic agenda that is focused on growth and competitiveness, including opening up new markets for American producers and service providers. In other words, we need policies that assure that individuals are always finding new and better job opportunities.

When all else fails, we need worker assistance programs that help all workers get the training they need throughout an entire lifetime in an effective way that actually allows them to continue to climb up the economic ladder. We need programs that help to keep workers competitive, regardless of why they have lost their jobs. Whether the blame lies with technology, lost competitiveness, or simply dying industries that are going the way of blacksmiths and buggy whip makers, the only thing that matters is that every American can find a job and remain upwardly mobile throughout a lifetime.

As I said, Mr. McCrery and Mr. McKeon have crafted a very thoughtful substitute that would work to accomplish just that. It would integrate trade adjustment assistance into other Federal worker programs so that we can help all workers facing tough times to get the training they need to remain competitive. Let me say again, we are very, very committed to ensuring that those workers who are facing tough times because of displacement that has come about due to trade agreements, that their concerns and their needs are addressed.

It would integrate trade adjustment assistance, as I said, in other Federal worker programs. In particular, it focuses on the Workforce Investment Act which has, as we all know, been very, very effective. This substitute would provide greater flexibility for workers so that they can actually get their training and education while they work, over a longer period of time. It would bring trade adjustment assistance into the 21st century, broadening its focus to reflect the new realities of the worldwide marketplace. It would ensure that the program remains accountable so that we can assure the taxpayers that their money is being spent in an effective and an efficient way. It would do all this without raising a single tax or creating any additional barriers to innovation and entrepreneurship.

This very thoughtful substitute is based on the premise that broad, far-reaching challenges demand broad, far-reaching solutions. And it is based on the very logical and simple fact that workers don't benefit when government puts job creators out of business. The Democrats' bill, on the other hand, takes a very narrow and flawed approach, while drastically increasing the money that we are wasting. Only the Democrats could manage to think small and spend big all in the same bill.

I hope today we can have a meaningful debate on the important issue of enhancing the competitiveness of the U.S. economy and ensuring that American workers, all workers, have access to new and better opportunities. I believe that our substitute gets us closer to that goal, and I anxiously look forward to the debate on this proposal.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time, if I might.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

And I would say to my good friend from New York that I think he's taken out of context my use of the term ``sob story.''

Now, as I said, I am a strong proponent of trade adjustment assistance and want to do everything that I possibly can to ensure that workers who have been negatively impacted by any kind of trade agreement are, in fact,

able to receive the training and the benefits that can help them improve their standard of living and their quality of life.

But, Madam Speaker, when I was using the term ``sob story,'' what I was talking about is the fact that time and time again we have demands made on those job creators out there, demands made of job creators which undermine their ability to create jobs and opportunities for people so that they can succeed. And then we, unfortunately, are faced with complaints coming from those people who are negatively impacted by the demands of policies that they have made to increase the regulatory burden, to increase the tax burden, which prevents those who are struggling to create new opportunities for U.S. workers from having an opportunity.

It looks like my friend would like me to yield to him. I am happy to yield to my friend.

If I can reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, the point that I try to make on trade is that it is a win-win. As I said in my statement, we have just this morning gotten the news of a 3.9 percent Gross Domestic Product growth rate, annualized, which is the largest growth rate that we've had in a year and a half.

Now, I recognize that we have problems out there with the subprime market. We have lots of difficulties with which we're trying to contend.

I think it's very important, Madam Speaker, for us to note that as we deal with these problems they are not trade related. They are not trade related. In fact, the standard of living, quality of life, 3.9 percent GDP growth rate that we're enjoying is due to the fact that we are in the midst of prying open new markets for U.S. workers so that they can sell to them.

As I said in the Rules Committee last night, Madam Speaker, 96 percent, 96 percent of the world's consumers are outside of our borders. The world has access to our consumer market. The world can sell to the consumers in New York, in California, and in other States as well. That has helped improve the quality of life and the standard of living for the American people. And so as that has happened, we have access to our market, but unfortunately, those other markets around the world are not as open as ours.

What is it that these agreements do that have been negotiated with Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea, and I hope, Madam Speaker, that we can do many more of these agreements. What they do is they pry open their markets for U.S. goods and services.

For example, in Colombia, the tariff rate on U.S. goods going into Colombia is 11 times greater than the tariff rate on Colombian products coming into the United States.

So, Madam Speaker, what we are saying is we want to create opportunities for U.S. workers so that they can export more. And, yes, if there is some displacement, we want to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that those workers who are negatively impacted by trade are, in fact, able to be trained and have the assistance that they need.

With that, I would like to inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

It's 3.9.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I will say I completely concur with my friend on the need for us to ensure that those who are negatively impacted by trade are, in fact, benefited.

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

The point that I am trying to make is that people who are impacted on a wide range of other factors that are not trade related are not those who should be directly benefiting from this.

We need to look at ourselves, what it is that we as a Nation can do to ensure that those individuals about whom my good friend has just spoken, who are laid off and are looking for new opportunities and want to have an opportunity to succeed, we need to look at what policies we can pursue in ensuring that we create the kind of opportunities those people deserve. Because right now government policies with a tax and regulatory policy and a lack of opportunity to sell in new markets around the world, because we have not proceeded with those trade agreements, are the things that are jeopardizing the ability for those U.S. workers to find the kind of opportunities they need.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

A couple of things. At the outset, Madam Speaker, I referred to a statement that was made by my good friend from Fort Lauderdale on the Rules Committee last night when he said that there was only one opportunity in the 109th Congress for an amendment to be made in order for a Ways and Means Committee bill when, in fact, we researched that, as I said, and Mr. Hastings was absolutely wrong when he said it. We have five instances in the 109th Congress where we, in fact, did make in order amendments for Mr. Rangel on the Ways and Means Committee for the consideration of measures.

Also stated last night, unfortunately, our friend from Worcester (Mr. McGovern) made a statement that all trade adjustment assistance measures have been considered under suspension or closed rules. There was an item that was considered under suspension. As I said, if it's considered under suspension and passed, it means that there is clearly a strong bipartisan consensus because, as our colleagues know, Madam Speaker, one is required to have a two-thirds vote to make that happen.

But there was another bill that dealt with this issue. It was H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, and it was considered under a structured or modified closed rule in the 107th Congress and it provided then-Ranking Member Rangel with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. So I just think it's important for us to make clear that we, in fact, did provide those kinds of opportunities.

Madam Speaker, as I said, I was prepared to support this rule. I do believe that it is a monumental accomplishment that, as we have gotten to October 31, Halloween, we are for the first time seeing a substitute made in order for the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, and I congratulate the Democratic majority, after having made this promise in January in a New Direction for America, that great document put forward by Speaker Pelosi in which the promise was made that amendments, open, full, fair debate, including a substitute, and it has taken us until October 31 before that has happened, but I celebrate,

Madam Speaker, the fact that we have finally gotten to this point. That was what was going to lead me to be supportive of this rule.

But then I picked up the Roll Call newspaper, one of our affectionately called ``rags'' on Capitol Hill here. On page 3 I looked, and I have a printout of it right here, the article goes through a press conference that the majority leader held yesterday and a statement by the very distinguished Chair of our committee, the gentlewoman from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter), in which she said the following: ``Nothing is imminent. We want to take our time and do it right.''

Madam Speaker, what she is referring to is this quest that was launched by the Democratic majority to undermine the minority's right to offer a motion to recommit. Now, again, as I said earlier, this is all inside baseball, but the motion to recommit means that nearly half of the American people, through their elected representatives, Democrat or Republican, have a right to offer a motion to recommit.

There have been some very thoughtful motions to recommit, 21, 22 of them that have succeeded in this Congress. Madam Speaker, we are in the minority. They would not have succeeded had we not seen a large number of Democrats join, and in a number of cases they have been passed nearly unanimously on recorded votes. So now with what are described as simply political moves, which are, interestingly enough, very thoughtful proposals that have been propounded by the Members of the minority, we are being told that once again the majority is looking to deny nearly half the American people the right to be heard on one single instance. So for that reason, I am going to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.

I am going to ask Members also to oppose the previous question on the rule so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to go to conference with the Senate on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, which passed this House with overwhelming bipartisan support.

There have been reports that the majority leadership is planning on playing a political game with our veterans and our men and women on the front lines by wrapping the Defense bill and the Veterans Affairs bill into the Labor, Health and Human Services bill.

The Military Construction bill could have been sent to the President's desk weeks ago, but the Democratic leadership was content to play political games with America's kids. All we have asked this majority to do is to simply come to the table and I am asking here today that we oppose the previous question so that I can make in order an amendment that would allow us to proceed with this.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be inserted in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, we are here discussing trade adjustment assistance, and it is designed to ensure that, we as an institution, will have an opportunity to, as I said earlier, open up those very important markets around the world. They're all relatively small, and the United States of America has a $13.3 trillion economy, the largest economy the world has ever known. We have lots of things that are trade-related that are beneficial to the United States of America. First and foremost is our national security. I think it is critical for us to proceed with passage of the Panama, Peru and Colombia free trade agreements for the security of this hemisphere. Similarly, the Korea agreement is very important because we all know about the challenges that exist on the Korean peninsula, and engaging in greater economic exchanges between and among these countries is very important for our Nation's security.

At the same time, Madam Speaker, it is important that we do what we can to ensure that we have the very important trade adjustment assistance for those Americans who are negatively impacted by trade.

With that, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. And if by chance the previous question proceeds, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on this rule because of the kinds of things that the new majority is trying to do to undermine the rights of nearly half the American people.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 781 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of the debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 781 provides for consideration of H.R. 3920, the Trade Globalization and Assistance Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled

by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. Finally, the rule makes in order a substitute amendment to be offered by Representative McCrery of Louisiana, or his designee.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying what we all know. Trade can be a very good thing for the economy of this country, and this Congress and this Member of Congress is committed to examining any trade agreement that is brought before this House in two ways: one, whether the terms and provisions will improve the economy of this country; and two, whether there is a capacity to share the benefits that that trade agreement will bring to this economy, across all sectors of it.

And what we have to acknowledge on trade agreements, and really is the underpinning of this legislation brought before the House, is that there is significant dislocation that can occur with trade. There can be winners and there can be losers, and in the adjustment to some of the consequences that have adverse impact on many of our workers across this country, we must have a substantial and vigorous and effective assistance program to help workers who are hurt regain jobs, regain employment, improve their incomes and be part of this economy and be part of the benefits, not just the downside of trade.

I want to thank Chairman Rangel, Chairman Miller, Congressman Levin and Congressman Smith for their diligence in putting together a very strong adjustment assistance package that we will vote for later today. Among many others, they have been working on this bill for nearly a decade.

Trade adjustment assistance hadn't been started in this country until 1962; even though trade has been a very difficult political issue for this country from its inception, where there were debates about tariffs. And in our days of our history, tariffs were used basically to protect our industries and allow them to get a foothold. And then trade barriers were gradually reduced, and what we're seeing as that happens is an increase in gross domestic product and wealth, but we're also seeing an increase in dislocation among many workers, and some of that is concentrated in many of the old industrial sectors of our country.

This legislation recognizes that impact and is attempting to substantially increase our ability to address the dislocation. That underpinning is essential for the consideration of any future trade packages that will be brought before this House.

The update is long overdue. H.R. 3920 expands trade assistance to the service sector. That was denied under the previous adjustment assistance legislation, even as more and more of our economy has become service-related and even as service sector jobs are being off-shored. So this change in trade adjustment assistance is long overdue and very necessary.

Too often workers are not provided with the training that they need under current training assistance bill. This bill doubles the current training fund cap to $440 million. Beyond expanding coverage to more workers, this TAA improves their training opportunities, as well as the all-important health care benefits.

Many of the folks who have been adversely affected by trade have come from older industries with strong unions where they had substantial and very important health care benefits. This trade adjustment assistance extends them.

It also creates new benefits for industries in communities that have been hardest hit by creating 24 manufacturing redevelopment zones to encourage the redevelopment of communities that have been hit the hardest by manufacturing decline.

What this legislation starts to understand is that one of the responses that we must have strategically to the acceleration of globalization is the intensification of localization. Our economies that have been hardest hit have to rebuild in part from the bottom up using the resources that we have in those communities, keeping dollars in those communities that can be reinvested and then create jobs and wealth in those communities.

Madam Speaker, one of the things that has been happening over the past generation is a widening gap between the highest and lowest paid among us. According to a 2006 survey conducted by the Wall Street Journal, the case right now is that the average CEO in the United States earns 262 times the pay of the average worker. It means that the CEO earned more in one work day than an average worker earned in the entire year.

And we have to look at this discrepancy because one of the actual facts that has to be recognized, whatever your position on trade, is that there has been this widening gap, and historically, this country has always been its best when we've had economic policies that have shared the wealth that is generated by people working hard in this country.

H.R. 3920 is an important bill for our economic stability and workforce growth. It's also a bill about fairness.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to read one section from the bill to allay the apprehensions about benefits going to illegal aliens: section 226, Restriction of Eligibility For Program Benefits, states very specifically that ``no benefit allowances, training or other employment services may be provided under this chapter to a worker who is an alien, unless the alien is an individual lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States.''

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), a member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and yielded back his time.

I thank the gentleman from California, my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, for his kind words and his usual vigorous argument for the point of view represented on his side.

A couple of things. One, this is a good opportunity for the House to have a full and fair debate on the substance of this legislation and on the substitute. We will have that debate, we will have the vote, and we'll see which side prevails. So I am delighted that all Members of the House are going to have a full and fair opportunity to make their case.

Second, before we get to the specific details on what is contained in this trade adjustment assistance, there is really a bottom line that has to be acknowledged and it's this: that the road to prosperity has to be built on a foundation of fairness. What has happened in this country, despite the economic growth of 3.9 percent most recently, the highest gross domestic product in the history of the world, over $13 trillion, is that average, everyday working people are falling farther behind.

We have had the greatest disparity in wealth in this country since the 1920s, and there is a fundamental question that we have to answer, and it's this: Are we going to include all Americans in the benefits of a rising economy, or are we going to pursue policies that allow for the intensification of that widening gap between the very wealthy and everyone else?

Our party has made a commitment to the basic proposition of democratic fairness that requires everyone to have an opportunity to participate in the benefits of a rising and strengthening economy. And that hasn't happened. But what we have done with the legislation we have brought before this House is essentially tried to build that foundation of fairness and provide a new direction on our economic agenda, one that includes all Americans.

Let me just give, Madam Speaker, a few examples. We raised the minimum wage, something that hadn't been done in over 10 years. We had people working harder, making less, many of them paying more in taxes because of the Social Security payroll tax increases than at any time in history. In the average families, they found themselves working two and three jobs in an effort to pay the light bill, in an effort to pay the fuel bill, losing health care.

We increased access to college education by taking a free ride away from the international banks that were literally getting a taxpayer guarantee in subsidized profits and gave that benefit to students so that their student loans were cut in half in the interest rate, from 6.8 to 3.4. We passed the child health care, which extends benefits to working families, basically, to 10 million children throughout this country, something our kids need.

And these are oftentimes the children of the working poor. These are folks working hard. They would rather not have to have any help, but they can't afford health care. We passed prescription drug price negotiation. Instead of giving away guaranteed legislated profits to the drug companies, we, in the House, it's languishing in the other body, required price negotiation so that we can get the benefit of lower prices that we're entitled to because of bulk purchasing.

We passed many provisions that are going to strengthen our small businesses across this country because we know the small business is a job creator. And we stood up to an administration, at a time when our veterans and our soldiers are doing more for this country than in recent memory, by passing the highest increase in the budget for veterans in the history of the Veterans Administration.

The bottom line here is that this Congress, this leadership has made a commitment to a new direction. And the new direction is the old-time values of making certain that workers, average families, and communities that are fully engaged as American citizens participate in the benefits of our economy.

Trade adjustment assistance is one more brick in that foundation of fairness. We can't have trade agreements

that are tilted so that the benefits are not shared and the burdens of dislocation are not shared.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.