[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 168 (Thursday, December 6, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H8953-H8960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REAUTHORIZING TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3008) to reauthorize the trade adjustment assistance program
under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3008
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I--REAUTHORIZATION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM;
RELATED PROVISIONS
SECTION 101. REAUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAM.
(a) Assistance for Workers.--Section 245 of the Trade Act
of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2317) is amended by striking ``October 1,
1998, and ending September 30, 2001,'' each place it appears
and inserting ``October 1, 2001, and ending September 30,
2003,''.
(b) Assistance for Firms.--Section 256(b) of the Trade Act
of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2346(b)) is amended by striking ``October
1, 1998, and ending September 30, 2001'' and inserting
``October 1, 2001, and ending September 30, 2003,''.
(c) Termination.--Section 285(c) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2271 note) is amended in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A)
by striking ``September 30, 2001'' and inserting ``September
30, 2003''.
(d) Training Limitation Under NAFTA Program.--Section
250(d)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2331(d)(2)) is
amended by striking ``October 1, 1998, and ending September
30, 2001'' and inserting ``October 1, 2001, and ending
September 30, 2003''.
(e) Clarification of Certain Reductions.--(1) Section
231(a)(3)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2291(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``any unemployment
insurance'' and inserting ``any regular State unemployment
insurance''.
(2) Section 233(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2293(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``unemployment insurance''
and inserting ``regular State unemployment insurance''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2001.
SEC. 102. AMENDMENTS TO LIMITATIONS ON TRADE READJUSTMENT
ALLOWANCES.
(a) Increase in Maximum Number of Weeks.--Section 233(a) of
the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2293(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``104-week
period'' the following: ``(or, in the case
[[Page H8954]]
of an adversely affected worker who requires a program of
remedial education (as described in section 236(a)(5)(D)) in
order to complete training approved for the worker under
section 236, the 130-week period)''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``26'' each place it
appears and inserting ``52''.
(b) Additional Weeks for Individuals in Need of Remedial
Education.--Section 233 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2293) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
in order to assist an adversely affected worker to complete
training approved for the worker under section 236 which
includes a program of remedial education (as described in
section 236(a)(5)(D)), and in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, payments may be made as trade
readjustment allowances for up to 26 additional weeks in the
26-week period that follows the last week of entitlement to
trade readjustment allowances otherwise payable under this
chapter.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to an individual receiving trade
readjustment allowances pursuant to chapter 2 of title II of
the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.) on or after
January 1, 2001.
SEC. 103. EXPEDITED REVIEW OF PETITIONS BY SECRETARY OF
LABOR.
Section 223(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273(a))
is amended in the first sentence by striking ``60 days'' and
inserting ``40 days''.
SEC. 104. DECLARATION OF POLICY; SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) Declaration of Policy.--Congress reiterates that, under
the trade adjustment assistance program under chapter 2 of
title II of the Trade Act of 1974, workers are eligible for
transportation, childcare, and healthcare assistance, as well
as other related assistance under programs administered by
the Department of Labor.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Labor, working independently and in
conjunction with the States, should, in accordance with
section 225 of the Trade Act of 1974, provide more specific
information about benefit allowances, training, and other
employment services, and the petition and application
procedures (including appropriate filing dates) for such
allowances, training, and services, under the trade
adjustment assistance program under chapter 2 of title II of
the Trade Act of 1974 to workers who are applying for, or are
certified to receive, assistance under that program,
including information on all other Federal assistance
available to such workers.
TITLE II--ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR WORKERS SEPARATED FROM
EMPLOYMENT DUE TO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.
As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall establish a program to
provide adjustment assistance for workers separated from
employment due to the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, in accordance with the provisions of this title.
SEC. 202. PETITION.
(a) Petition.--A petition for a certification of
eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under this
title may be filed with the Secretary by a group of workers
(including workers in any agricultural firm or subdivision of
an agricultural firm) or by their certified or recognized
union or other duly authorized representative. Upon receipt
of the petition, the Secretary shall promptly publish notice
in the Federal Register that the Secretary has received the
petition and initiated an investigation.
(b) Public Hearing.--If the petitioner, or any other person
found by the Secretary to have a substantial interest in the
proceedings, submits not later than 10 days after the date of
the Secretary's publication under subsection (a) a request
for a hearing, the Secretary shall provide for a public
hearing and afford such interested persons an opportunity to
be present, to produce evidence, and to be heard.
SEC. 203. CERTIFICATION.
(a) Certification.--The Secretary shall certify a group of
workers (including workers in any agricultural firm or
subdivision of an agricultural firm) as eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under this title if the Secretary
determines--
(1) that a significant number or proportion of the workers
in such workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the
firm have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) that sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
(3) that the national impact of the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, contributed importantly to such total or
partial separation, or threat thereof, and to such decline in
sales or production, as determined by the Secretary.
(b) Additional Requirements.--The provisions of section 223
of the Trade Act of 1974 shall apply to a determination and
issuance of a certification with respect to a group of
workers under this title in the same manner and to the same
extent as such provisions apply to a determination and
issuance of a certification with respect to a group of
workers under the program under subchapter A of chapter 2 of
title II of such Act, to the extent determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of subsection (a)(3), the
term ``contributed importantly'' means a cause which is
important but not necessarily more important than any other
cause.
SEC. 204. BENEFITS.
Workers covered by a certification issued by the Secretary
under section 203 shall be provided, in the same manner and
to the same extent as workers covered under a certification
under the program under subchapter A of chapter 2 of title II
of the Trade Act of 1974, the benefits described in
subchapter B of chapter 2 of title II of such Act, to the
extent determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
SEC. 205. ADMINISTRATION.
The provisions of subchapter C of chapter 2 of title II of
the Trade Act of 1974 shall apply to the administration of
the program under this title in the same manner and to the
same extent as such provisions apply to the administration of
the program under subchapter A of chapter 2 of title II of
such Act, to the extent determined to be appropriate by the
Secretary.
SEC. 206. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Labor.
(2) Terrorist attacks of september 11, 2001.--The term
``terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001'' means the
following events that occurred on September 11, 2001:
(A) The attack, using two hijacked commercial aircraft,
that was made on the towers of the World Trade Center in New
York City.
(B) The attack, using a hijacked commercial aircraft, that
was made on the Pentagon.
(C) The hijacking of a commercial aircraft and the
subsequent crash of the aircraft in the State of
Pennsylvania, in the County of Somerset.
SEC. 207. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this title
$2,000,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
(b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under subsection (a) are
authorized to remain available until expended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I asked for consideration of this bill, as amended,
because the underlying bill, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act,
expired on October 1.
In the committee we passed as a placeholder, if you will, a simple
extension of the bill, fully intending, once we understood the
consequences of September 11 and our ability to make additional
adjustments, that we would, as we are doing here today, offer
amendments on the floor of the House.
So I would like to address, other than the simple reauthorization,
what those amendments are.
The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act says that if one loses one's job
primarily related to trade, they are to get assistance and retraining.
The problem is the current structure says that they also get income
support while they are being retrained. The income support runs out
before the training ends, and what we are doing is reconciling the
differences between the two.
But beyond that, because of the events on September 11, we believe
that it is entirely appropriate to include in this bill,
notwithstanding the fact that it is supposed to be tied to trade, an
act for the Secretary of Labor to assess those individuals who lost
their job through no fault of their own associated with the tragic
events on September 11.
That declaration would be virtually identical to the declaration that
she is currently empowered to exercise in the area of trade. And to
assist her in doing this for the 2-year period of this provision, we
provide $1 billion this year and $1 billion next year, a total of $2
billion.
There has been some discussion and, my assumption is, some confusion
on the other side of the aisle on materials that have been prepared to
describe what this measure does. It does not require an appropriation.
The provisions of the Trade Adjustment Act are an entitlement, and when
the money is made available, it is available. It is not a requirement
that a second hurdle be met. It is not that we could give with one hand
and take away with another.
Anyone who supports this measure can have comfort in knowing that it
not only makes more sense out of the
[[Page H8955]]
assistance given to those who lose their jobs through trade, but for
the next 2 years, those who were the unfortunate victims, from an
employment point of view, because of September 11 will be able to have
this assistance, as well.
In addition to that, since both the trade and the September 11 events
are keyed to those who lost their job primarily associated with trade,
we have discussed with the administration, and at the appropriate time
I would like to place in the Record a letter from the Secretary of
Labor who agrees that, although they may not have lost their job
primarily because of the event, either trade or the tragedy of
September 11, that there is additional support for those who
secondarily lost their job, and that program is in place and will be
used to expand the opportunities to assist people, even though they
would not be classified under the primary trigger that is in this bill.
That is the sum and substance of what we have in front of us. It is a
significant improvement in the underlying bill, and clearly, we have
added this provision over 2 years at $1 billion a year to focus on
those who lost their jobs not necessarily through trade, but because of
the tragic events of September 11, and we allow the Secretary of Labor
to make a decision similar to those who lost their jobs in trade.
The letter from the Secretary of Labor referred to earlier is as
follows:
Secretary of Labor,
Washington, DC.
Hon. William M. Thomas,
Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thomas: As you know, the Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) programs authorized income support and
training for workers who are able to demonstrate that they
lost their jobs because an increase in imports of a ``like or
directly competitive product'' contributed importantly to the
job loss. I understand that a number of workers, including
those in the textile industry, have been unable to obtain
certifications under the TAA programs because they are
classified as ``secondary workers'' and do not produce a
product ``like or directly competitive with'' the important
product. As a result, these workers cannot meet the TAA
standard.
Nevertheless, I recognize that these secondary workers may
have also been adversely affected by a trade agreement.
Accordingly, I commit to using my current authority under the
Workforce Investment Act to provide national emergency grants
that can be used to provide income support, training and
other reemployment services to eligible workers in firms that
are determined to be secondary workers. Eligible workers
would be required to meet the following criteria: (1) the
subject firm must be a supplier of products to a TAA
certified firm under 19 U.S.C. 2272(a) that is directly
affected by imports, and (2) the loss of business with the
directly affected firm must have contributed importantly to
worker separations at the subject firm.
I recognize that while trade agreements will result in net
economic benefits and increased job opportunities, some
workers may be adversely affected. It is our responsibility
to assure that hardworking Americans have appropriate
opportunities to adjust to trade-related changes to the
workforce.
Sincerely,
Elaine L. Chao.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill came before the Committee on Ways and Means.
It did so in a way that did not allow us to add the reforms that are
necessary for TAA.
Those reforms are many. Many of them have been recommended by GAO.
Many of them are contained in the bill that is now in the Senate
Finance Committee; actually, it is out of the Senate Finance Committee.
Many of them are in a bill that has been introduced in this House. They
relate to everything from the training provisions to wage insurance, to
health insurance, to trade assistance for communities.
None of these are covered by this bill, so what we have before us is
a reauthorization of TAA, with essentially two additions. One of them
would allow the income maintenance to be for the same period as the
training provision.
I am in favor of that, Mr. Speaker. Everybody should understand,
however, that we are talking about a very small number of people who
would be affected. As I understand it, less than 1 percent of those who
are dislocated, or about 1 percent, would benefit from this provision.
The second relates to the $2 billion add-on. This was not discussed
in the Committee on Ways and Means, and its implications remain
unclear. I want to talk a bit about it substantively and raise a few
questions.
But for everybody listening, I would say the following: We are going
to be taking up a fast track TPA bill. One reason I think this bill is
being brought up this morning this way is in case someone would like to
use this as a reason to vote for a TPA fast track bill, I urge that
there is no justification for using that as a reason.
TAA should have been expanded, and beyond what is being provided this
morning. This morning is a quickie effort to move. It is inadequate. It
has been called a small step, and that is, at best, what it is.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), our chairman, has said
that no appropriation is needed. While the language may not be clear, I
accept that. Then we have the question of $2 billion. I think the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) said it is $1 billion every
year; it is not $2 billion each year. As a result, there is a good
question as to how many people this will really cover.
When we look at the number of people who were dislocated before
September 11 and add those who were dislocated after September 11,
there is no way $1 billion is adequate funding for this program. That
is another reason that is a small step at best.
Then there is the issue of the training benefit. As I understand, the
TAA program caps the training benefit at $100 million. If that is true,
what is going to happen with the way this is handled is that we will
not have nearly adequate funds for the training component because that
apparently is still capped. Maybe there can be clarification of that.
But as I understand it, the cap of $100 million remains, so
essentially we are going to have a disequilibrium between the income
provision and the training provision, and we are going to have many,
many more people who might be eligible than was true before September
11. There is no provision for health insurance in this program.
Now, I want to say just a word about the issue of coverage, because
one of the reforms that we should have been undertaking in this
legislation, which is not even touched upon except perhaps indirectly,
is who is covered. Will service workers be covered? Presently they are
not, and it is not clear that they would be under this provision,
because the TAA bill generally does not cover service workers.
The Secretary of Labor has said that secondary workers or, I should
say, those who were laid off in a secondary way as a result of
September 11, will become eligible under this program, I guess under
rules and regulations that are promulgated by the Secretary. That
leaves this program with much lack of clarity. There is no direction in
this legislation as to how the Secretary of Labor should conduct
herself and how she should implement the definition as she now sees it.
So this is a proposal that has come up at the last minute. These
changes do not get at many of the basic issues of reform.
In terms of the relation of the training provision to the income
provision, that has serious questions as to adequacy. Clearly it will
not be adequate in terms of money, and it is not clear who would be
covered.
I will leave it for further debate to clarify these issues. I hope
that would happen, and then leave it for every Member to make a
judgment. It may be that this is a tiny step forward. It should not be
used as a rationale for a vote on any other bill.
Let us have a little bit of discussion now as to what is involved in
this very small step when we should have been undertaking, as the
Senate Finance Committee did a few days ago, some major reform of TAA.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
For what it is worth, for the record, the discussion and the vote in
the committee on trade assistance was that it was a voice vote and no
amendments were offered. I think we have to understand the context in
which that discussion took place.
In addition to that, the gentleman from Michigan laments the fact
that there is nothing in this particular provision for people who were
laid off prior
[[Page H8956]]
to September 11. We have to understand that this particular structure
is triggered off of an event, a trade-related job loss, and now we are
extending it to the tragedy of September 11 job loss.
{time} 1000
Not just any job loss. The President has spoken repeatedly on what he
wants on an expanded assistance, including additional weeks, additional
money, and additional assistance, not just on unemployment compensation
but on health insurance as well. We on this side of the aisle, with the
support of leadership, have also talked about expanding that area. That
is in fact a different subject matter to be discussed at a different
time. And this particular vehicle never was intended nor should it
carry a response to unemployment because of a recession or a more
generally difficult problem that spreads beyond the trigger of trade-
related; and now for 2 years, those people who lost their jobs in
association with the tragedy surrounding September 11.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3008 is a bill to reauthorize the trade adjustment
assistance programs for 2 years until September 30, 2003. The current
authorization expired in September but is continuing subject to the
continuing resolution adopted last month and running until November 16,
2001.
It is an economic fact that free trade helps our overall economy. The
value of the Uruguay Round Agreements and NAFTA to the U.S. economy was
over $65 billion. A recent study at the University of Michigan, right
next to the gentleman from Michigan's district, found that a new round
could add double again that benefit. The general direction of trade
policy should therefore be obvious. We should work assiduously toward
free trade.
Nevertheless, it is also a fact that free trade accelerates economic
change, which disproportionately hurts some industries and people. It
is important then for us to offer a hand to those people and
industries. We should help them adjust. This means that workers may
need to train for other types of jobs, and during that training and
subsequent job search time, they may need more direct assistance than
States routinely provide. Similarly, firms need assistance in making
strategic adjustments necessary to remain competitive in a global
economy. The trade adjustment assistance programs provide this help.
All three TAA programs have proven successful and popular in
softening the impact of foreign competition on workers in impacted
industries. Workers may receive cash payments, job training, and
allowances for job search and relocation expenses. In addition, we have
heard concerns from Members about the problems in their districts and
the need to increase the direct assistance for workers in order for
them to complete their training. Accordingly, we are increasing the
direct assistance by an additional 26 weeks and shortening the time
that the government has to process petitions.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and
reauthorize the trade adjustment assistance programs.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, whatever of the issues are in the trade
adjustment bill, they are not the reason this bill is out here. This
bill is out here as a vehicle for putting some things through the House
that the chairman and others think will blind the eyes of Members of
this House and will offer them some hope that there will be something
done for the unemployed workers in this country, and that then they
will say, well, since we have done that for the unemployed workers, we
can now go ahead and pass fast track.
Now, the Speaker stood right here and promised us that we would do
something about the health care and the unemployed workers of this
country. When this bill came before the committee, every amendment was
nongermane. No one said this is our chance to put unemployment up here.
This is our chance to put up health care. It was a narrow little trade
adjustment bill. And so now, after it gets out of the committee, they
take it up to the Committee on Rules, and the Committee on Rules sticks
in a bunch of stuff that nobody has looked at.
There is not anybody who can stand on this floor and say there will
be one single unemployed worker in this country whose health care
benefits will be protected by this bill. There is a bill that is going
over to the Senate in the last days of the session, and we have had a
recession in this country since March and we have not done anything,
and we are here on the 5th of December, 6th of December, whatever it
is, and we still have not had hearings in the House of Representatives
on what really needs to be done to the unemployment system.
We have States in this country that do not have enough money for 3
months of unemployment benefits. Did we have a hearing on that? Did we
talk about it? No. We have simply stuck $9 billion into a bill that
went out of here, called the stimulus package, and said give it to the
Governors; they will do whatever is right. Well, at least they figured
out now that they want to make it done by the Congress, because
Governors would have to call legislators into session to get anything
done.
This is a fraud. This is a fraud. It has not had hearings, and you
people have messed up the Medicare system in this country because you
will not have hearings and figure out how it is going to work. And then
suddenly since 1997, we are back every year fixing, fixing, fixing.
Here's $2 billion for health; just throw it out there into the air and
maybe it will happen to come down in the hands of somebody who is
unemployed.
Give it to the Governors. Where is that going to get anybody?
We are all going to vote for this, but nobody should be confused
about what this is.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the gentleman says that every
amendment they offered was nongermane. Would you not think, if they
were serious, they could offer a germane amendment? It was basically to
be able to say that they were not able to do what they wanted to do.
Then the next argument is what in the world is trade adjustment
assistance, which expired on October 1, doing on the floor the same day
we are taking up trade promotion authority? The idea if we do enter
into additional negotiations and we have some trade agreements, that
someone may lose employment based upon the fact that we have the new
trade agreements and we would not have reauthorized the legislation
that takes care of those who lose their jobs because of trade.
If the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) does not understand
why trade adjustment assistance is on the floor on the same day that we
consider trade promotion authority, then I just do not know if there is
any help for him.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. Dunn) who has been a tremendous help in focusing especially those
portions of the bill dealing with workers who lost their jobs because
of September 11.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3008 to reauthorize
the trade adjustment assistance program and to temporarily extend new
coverage for workers who were impacted by September 11.
TAA is critical for countless workers who have been adversely
affected by foreign competition or by terrorist attacks. Many of the
people I represent in Washington State will benefit from the job
training services and unemployment compensation that are provided by
this provision.
In 1998 and 1999, TAA provided $10 million worth of benefits to over
19,000 Boeing workers who were laid off. Many of the 20,000 to 30,000
Boeing workers who have been or will be laid off by the end of next
year can now qualify for assistance from the traditional TAA and the
new expanded coverage. This bill enhances income support benefits for
an additional 26 weeks and it shortens the petition review time from 60
days to 40 days. These are changes that will help reduce paperwork
while providing a very necessary safety net to workers.
[[Page H8957]]
I want to assure the former speaker that I am very happy this
legislation also includes provisions that the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) and I have added to ensure that States already providing
supplemental unemployment coverage beyond the Federal mandates are not
penalized.
Under current Federal law, Washington State residents could not use
TAA benefits until the State's regular and supplemental unemployment
benefits were exhausted. I want to thank the gentleman from California
(Chairman Thomas) and Subcommittee on Trade chairman, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Crane) for working with the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) and me to give Washington State greater
flexibility by enabling the people we represent to qualify for TAA much
earlier.
We have got to do all we can, Mr. Speaker, to provide relief to those
who are now coping with the very difficult circumstances that displaced
workers face. This legislation is a positive step in providing much
needed assistance to those who reside in the area. I represent the
great Pacific Northwest. My constituents there are very eager to get
back to work.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Bentsen) who is the author of a comprehensive TAA bill in the
House.
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, let me say I am going to vote for this bill, but this
bill is a day late and a dollar short. This issue has been on the front
burner, I think, of the whole trade debate for many, many years. And I
think as the chairman and the ranking member know, there have been
numerous articles in economic journals and academia about the whole
issue of trade adjustment assistance.
This is a program that was created in 1962, and I cannot think of any
program that was created in 1962 that somebody in Congress has not
talked about the need to reform, and this program certainly needs
reform. As best as I can tell from this bill, it does not address the
issues of secondary workers in any clear-cut fashion or manner. It does
not address the issue of allowing workers who we want to go back into
retraining to get a part-time job to help put food on the table, which
is really counter to every other public assistance program that we have
addressed in the time I have been in this Congress.
It does not have anything to do with providing for better
coordination between the Federal Government and State and local
government, where a lot of these dollars are done through the work
force training partnership programs that we have.
We had a situation a couple of years ago in El Paso, Texas where
Hasbro had shut down plants, and they took TAA money and were teaching
workers English instead of giving them skills to work in light
manufacturing which needed jobs in the El Paso area, which is very much
a bilingual area.
This bill, quite frankly, does not do enough. I am one who in the
past has supported I think every trade bill that has come up. And every
time I have done that, I have said we need to do more to help those who
do not win from trade. And I am not alone in this view. A few weeks
ago, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, very much a
free trader, made remarks at the International Institute for Economics
at their inaugural dinner. In that debate, the chairman said that trade
is not necessarily about increasing a net gain of jobs, it is about
raising the standard of living, and there are those who lose from
comparative advantage even in the United States and that we have to do
more to help those workers who fall behind.
This bill, quite frankly, does not do enough. If we were serious
about doing this, we would bring up my bill, 3359; or the chairman can
do his own bill, put it on the floor, let us debate it. This is a
serious program that affects millions of Americans who do not benefit
from trade. I believe the general economy can benefit from trade, but
there are fellow Americans who do not. We should be doing more about
it. This bill does not do it. There is a better way to do it.
I would hope that the House would get back on the right track as it
relates to trade and address the issues so all our fellow Americans can
benefit from this.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the sponsor of this legislation.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this legislation and I am interested that so many of my colleagues are
criticizing the process by which it came to the floor or criticizing
the fact that it does not do enough.
This is the first time in the history of this country that Congress
has offered 2 years of stipend plus training costs to the unemployed.
It is the first time. And those benefits are over and above the half-
year of unemployment compensation benefits under current law.
The Democrats were in control of this House for 40 years. Never ever
did they offer this kind of benefit to people unemployed as a result of
foreign competition and, in this case, we are extending these
remarkable benefits to those who lost their jobs as a result of a
terrorist action as well.
Now, we need to lay our controversies aside and vote this through.
This is an exceptional benefit for people who were unemployed as a
result of foreign competition or as a result of the attack on September
11.
{time} 1015
Let me tell my colleagues what it means. Remember your own people in
your own district. Unemployment compensation is a small amount of
money, and the unemployed have to keep going out and proving that they
are looking for a job. Under TAA we said, look, you have the right for
retraining and you will not have to go out and look for a job during
this period. We are going to pay their unemployment comp so they have a
way to support their family and we are going to pay for their training.
I have had people tell me in my district, as recently as 4 months
ago, that, no, they were not looking for a job because under TAA, they
had the right to go back to school. I just heard the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen) say that they were teaching English as a second
language. Is not that an incredibly important thing for a person to be
able to have the opportunity to learn if they want real career
advancement?
I have had many people, particularly women, tell me it is wonderful
that I can go back and get my high school diploma. I can learn English
as a second language and I am going to take this training, too, because
in the period of time in which I can get training costs and a stipend,
I can change my life.
Often people, at least in my district, go from high school into the
factories or from very minimal education into the factories, and I will
tell my colleagues that for many of them, often their company losing
its competitive position, resulting in their having the TAA benefits,
has changed their lives. They do not have to take the next job if they
can afford to live on unemployment comp, which they often can if the
other spouse is working, and go back to school. The joy in their eyes,
as they have the chance to learn English, as they have the chance to
get a degree, as they can go to the community college, as they can go
to a medical technology course to prepare for a career that will offer
them a higher salary and a lifestyle they are going to be proud of and
happy with.
This is the first time ever in history that the United States
Government has offered people 104 weeks of this benefit. I appreciate
all the ancillary concerns of my colleagues, but do not let those
ancillary concerns and the angers that are afoot in this body between
this body and the other body prevent us from putting out there this
kind of benefit that is going to help people at a level we have never
been willing to help them before.
Let me just add one thing about the September 11th victims, those
unemployed as a result of the September 11 attack. It is very hard, to
determine in law exactly who is unemployed as a result of foreign
competition as to determine who is unemployed as a result of the New
York attack. Our Department of Labor has been very generous in their
definitions and I believe will continue to be very generous in making
people eligible for these benefits.
[[Page H8958]]
I have had a lot of experience with this in Connecticut. I represent
a town that was all machine tools, bearings. Name the manufacturing
facility and it used to be in my hometown, and I have been through this
right up till recent years. The Department of Labor has been very open
about it. They have been very generous about the definition, and people
have benefited enormously, and I believe they will be the same kind of
good helpmate in identifying who exactly the September 11 unemployed
are. I urge support of this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time is remaining on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) has 6 minutes. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
has 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
very distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) for yielding me the time and also for the work put
into this.
We talk about trade agreements and we talk about the global economy,
but every once in a while we need to make sure that we have a rearview
mirror and that the rearview mirror is clearly focused to understand
people who get left behind.
This program is one of the programs that assists people that get left
behind and those relationships that we establish, and that is why it is
vitally important to make sure that the resources are there and the
tools are there so that people can have another opportunity, can get
the training and education necessary.
In our own State of Maine, we faced these challenges of losing jobs
in traditional manufacturing industries and this year has been no
exception. There were 19 different applications for trade adjustment
assistance awaiting review for Maine companies. This program has helped
over 1,000 workers in Maine every year to retrain and restart their
lives. It allows the workers to adapt to the 21st century economy while
extending a crucial helping hand during troubled times.
I do wish that the bill had gone further in expanding this valuable
program. The TAA law should be changed to be able to cover all forms of
production shifts to other countries. The funding for the program
needed to be more because it usually runs out of money for its training
budget. This past year the Maine Department of Labor had to apply for
$1.2 million in national emergency grants from the U.S. Department of
Labor to cover costs. So we need to be able to look at expanding
funding to ensure this.
However, although this bill is not perfect, the program is important
to workers in Maine and around the country, and I urge my colleagues to
vote for its reauthorization.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), who has experience in this area
both within and without Congress.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, trade is a tricky business. What we are
trying to do is go beyond the bounds of the United States and move into
other areas, and this is very, very important. We are going to be
talking about this later, because there are people who want our goods
and services, but in the process, it is an uneven balancing act and
people either in government or in business management can make
decisions as far as going abroad. Yet at the same time there are people
down in the system who are doing their best to be able to work
diligently, loyally, who have no control over that.
Sometimes the squeeze comes because of the imbalance in this process
and they need protection, and this is what the bill is all about.
I think it makes a great deal of sense. I think the conditions are
fine. Maybe we will be able to enrich it later on, but it is a good
start, and I heartily endorse the TAA bill H.R. 3008.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I come from textile country, and I have seen
the effects of imports upon jobs in the area where I live, $77 billion
trade deficit in textiles and apparel last year. Over the last 10
years, we have lost about a million jobs in textile and apparel, and I
can tell my colleagues, from my own district, my own State, from the
Carolinas to the southeast, only a minute percentage of these people
who have lost their jobs have been able to get trade adjustment
assistance benefits.
That is a hard truth. We have heard these benefits extolled here on
the floor, but in truth, very, very few people qualify for them.
It is shameful how little we do for the people we know are going to
be hurt by the trade policies that we adopt, and anybody who thinks
that this is going to make it easier to vote for fast track, easier to
vote for trade promotion authority, they better think again, because
this bill is a pittance. This bill will do very little. It does nothing
to expand the eligibility of these people we know are going to be
direct hits. They are not collateral casualties in this war. They are
direct hits.
We know when we lower the tariffs, get rid of the quotas, that
textiles are going to come flooding into our markets by an even greater
volume and quantity, and we know exactly who is going to be hurt and
who is going to be hit. No question about it, they are direct hits.
We say that we have got these benefits for them so they can have this
marvelous change of life, this mid-course adjustment, but in truth,
they have still got a house payment to make. They have still got car
payments to make, and I know from talking to countless textile workers
in my own district, very, very few of them, if they have it, can afford
to exercise their COBRA benefits out of the meager unemployment income
that they receive.
This is a mirage. Worse still, it is deceitful. It holds out that we
are doing something significant when there is an agenda full of changes
recommended to TAA that should start with the Department of Labor,
which is woefully, woefully understaffed to handle the volume of
applications under TAA. This is a pittance compared to what needs to be
done, and we should be ashamed that we are bringing this up in the name
of helping people who are going to be hurt by trade.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, is it the gentleman from Michigan's
understanding that the intention of this bill is to make benefits
available for Boeing workers who have been laid off after September 11
and for 100,000 airline employees who have been laid off since
September 11?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. It is not easy to read this bill, but I think so.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan thinks so? So
I have got to go home to my district and tell my people they might be
covered by this, it is not clear?
Mr. LEVIN. It is not clear, and indeed, there will have to be
regulations issued by the Department of Labor in terms of those who are
affected secondarily.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think that is why this bill is really a
fraud. It seems to do something for people but it is not clear. It is
subject to interpretation by the Department of Labor.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In the earlier reincarnation of the gentleman from Washington's
statement on the floor, he indicated that he was going to be supporting
the bill. I do not know what happened in the intervening moments, but
apparently he is now supporting a fraud.
The question that was offered to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin), I believe, should have been answered this way. Do the Boeing
employees and do the airline employees believe that the events of
September 11, which included the government mandatory grounding of
aircraft, the significant
[[Page H8959]]
reduction in income to airlines, and their subsequent requirement to
cancel airplane contracts, primarily tie to the September 11 event? If
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is so bemuddled about trying to
read this bill, that he could not answer yes to that question, then his
answer was a political one and not an honest one.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Washington
(Mr. McDermott), is a former Illinoisan and from the Chicago area, and
I know that Boeing has moved to Chicago, and we are not laying folks
off in Chicago, and I just wanted to find out if the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) was in any way involved in trying to get
them to move to God's country.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have, 1\1/2\ minutes?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Let me just read what the standard is so that instead of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), as he sometimes does question
motives, let us talk about what is in the law. It says for whom in,
``The national impact of the terrorist attacks on September 11
contributed importantly to their job loss.''
If anybody thinks that is a very clear standard, I ask them to think
twice. It is better than nothing, but do not parade it for what it is
not. I want to close by pointing out that in order for persons to be
eligible for this, they must be eligible for unemployment insurance
first. Less than 40 percent, and maybe it is only about a third of the
workers in this country qualify for unemployment compensation in their
State, and also, less than a fifth of low income workers qualify,
including many in the services industry.
So what this has is not only a small amount of money for what is
truly needed, not only does it have no other reforms, nothing for
health care, but it is not going to cover a huge number of people who
were affected by the September 11 tragedy, who clearly were affected. I
just want everybody to understand what this bill really is and make no
pretense that it is a reason to vote for any other bill.
{time} 1030
Mr. THOMAS. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from California
has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The name of this legislation is trade adjustment assistance. It is
not undifferentiated unemployment compensation. There is another whole
set of statutes, procedures, and funding to deal with unemployment in
general. This measure's title is Trade Adjustment Assistance.
What we have done is to expand this bill to cover those individuals
who, through no fault of their own, in a way in which they can show a
nexus, and the gentleman from Michigan is entirely correct, that the
loss of their job was a result of a contribution importantly tied to
the September 11 event.
The gentleman then went on to complain about a number of other
factors in which people are not eligible for unemployment in general.
Not that it is tied to trade or the September 11 event, but that he is
concerned about, in general, the failure of the unemployment insurance
program to reach out to more people. We are going to have ample
opportunity to deal with that in a larger context. The President has
spoken to that issue. We have voted on that issue in this body in the
stimulus package, and we have said we are willing to go far beyond what
had been offered previously. That is not what is in front of us.
And I will repeat my understanding of the question of the gentleman
from Washington. Because of the way in which the tragedy on September
11 occurred, the government ordered all planes grounded. The airlines
suffered significant financial losses that resulted in the release of
employees that otherwise would not have been released, and it resulted
in the cancellation of airplane purchase contracts that otherwise would
not have occurred. What we are expected to believe is that the
Secretary of Labor would have great difficulty in associating those two
events, the two events that the gentleman from Washington is concerned
would not be covered by this legislation; that the Secretary of Labor
would say neither of those qualify under this legislation.
I will tell the gentleman from Washington, I believe they do, and I
will do everything in my power to make sure that the Secretary of labor
says that those who lost their jobs because airplane contracts were
canceled by airlines who had a shrinking in revenue because the
government said they could not fly, and they released employees because
of that same circumstance, certainly would be able to say that the loss
of their jobs and the events associated with September 11 contributed
importantly to the loss of those jobs. Those hurdles are not difficult
ones to overcome.
Beyond that, we need to continue to work together, quit haranguing,
and make sure that people who are currently unemployed, and who will
become unemployed because the House has acted and the Senate has not on
the larger questions, need to be preserved for another day.
On this measure, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.'' It is better
than it has ever been before.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to rise in
support of the reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance
program.
Over the last 5 years, even as the economy in the rest of the country
was booming, the manufacturing economy in Southeastern Wisconsin has
been declining. While there are many companies in my district that
could not survive without international trade, some companies have
moved their operations outside U.S. borders. This is unfortunate for
both the workers and the economy of Southeastern Wisconsin. TAA offers
a way to buffer the transition.
The relocation of Southeastern Wisconsin companies outside the U.S.
border has been constant over the past decade. In my 3-year tenure, I
have seen the MacWhyte Co. of Kenosha shift production to Canada,
Outboard Marine Corp. of Beloit go bankrupt, and Acme Die Casting of
Racine shut down because of foreign competition. These companies, and
several others over the years have applied for and have been granted
either TAA and NAFTA-TAA, or both, for their workers. While TAA is not
the same as a stable job, it gives workers a chance to access valuable
job training while receiving expanded state unemployment insurance or
an $800 relocation expense reimbursement if the worker decides his
skills are valuable at another company elsewhere.
TAA for workers guarantees extended unemployment benefits and job
training to those left jobless when imported goods have contributed
significantly to their job loss. A similar program exists for workers
affected by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) when
American firms relocate production to Mexico or Canada. H.R. 3008
reauthorizes TAA and NAFTA-TAA through FY2003. This bill extends direct
benefits for an 26 additional weeks over the previous 78 weeks to total
104 weeks of both training and direct benefits. I supported this bill
when it passed the Ways and Means Committee and support it today. I
also voted in favor of an appropriation of $416 million in H.R. 3061,
the FY2002 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
Appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, reauthorization of TAA and NAFTA-TAA is in the interest
of the United States and, especially to those workers in Southeastern
Wisconsin that have lost their livelihood as a result of international
pressures. I am proud to be a co-sponsor and strong supporter of this
bill.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which
provides a two-year reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment Assistance
program. While I am pleased that Ways and Means Committee worked to
increase direct benefits to trade displaced workers and new benefit
coverage to workers affected by the September 11th terrorist attacks, I
am disappointed that the broader reauthorization provisions contained
in a bill I introduced were not included in this legislation.
With my colleague Anna Eshoo, I was pleased to offer H.R. 3359, which
is the House version of legislation offered by Senators Bingaman,
Baucus and Daschle as S. 1209, and was recently reported out of the
Senate Finance Committee. H.R. 3359 would enact real reform and
modification of the existing TAA program, which has been in existence
since 1962 to help workers and communities address the difficulties
presented by international trade. I wish the House Leadership
[[Page H8960]]
had seen fit to consider this critical legislation, and I reman hopeful
that many provisions of this bill will be adopted during conference
consideration following the expected adoption of S. 1209.
Today we are here to consider the need for increased attention to the
plight of workers affected by U.S. supported international trade
agreements. As someone who has supported pro-trade measures in the
past, I believe the negative effects on workers and communities has
been often overlooked by proponents in the trade debate. Regardless of
how each Member of Congress feels about globalization and free trade, I
believe there is general agreement that the existing federal program to
assist workers displaced by trade is outdated and in serious need of
reform.
The current TAA program contains benefits criteria that are too
restrictive; exclude too many workers; are inconsistent and contain
confusing regulations--including a separate program under NAFTA;
provide inadequate funding for job training, and lacks health care
coverage.
My bill would improve on the current TAA in a number of ways,
including the establishment of allowance, training, relocation and
support service assistance to workers affected by shifts in production.
The measures would also harmonize existing TAA programs to provide more
effective and efficient results for individuals and communities. The
legislation would facilitate on-the-job training and faster
reemployment for older workers by providing up to two years in wage
insurance for qualified workers over age 50. Additionally, income
maintenance would be increased from 52 to 78 weeks, and funds available
for training would be increased to ensure that workers taking part-time
jobs would not lose training benefits. H.R. 3359 would also provide a
tax credit for 50 percent of COBRA payments, increase assistance for
job relocation and link TAA recipients to child care and health care
benefits under existing programs. To help communities respond to job
losses more quickly and efficiently, this bill would encourage greater
cooperation between federal, state, regional, and local agencies that
deal with individuals receiving trade adjustment assistance.
Mr. Speaker, as we move toward consideration of the Trade Promotion
Authority later today, I believe we must not discount the effect of
trade to the American workers. I believe we can improve the trade
adjustment assistance programs in a fundamental and beneficial way.
Congress should pass legislation that will make these improvements in
the trade adjustment assistance program, and I ask my colleagues to
support this bill.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3008, the
reauthorization of the Trade Adjustment Act, which is a vital program
to help those workers who have lost their jobs due to increased
imports. TAA gives these displaced workers the best chance for new
employment opportunities. The program provides retraining, education,
job search assistance, and income support to get people through the
trials of unemployment and toward a new job.
I want to commend Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Rangel for
including in this bill additional benefits to reflect the economic
consequences of September 11. These workers, including many in
Washington State, suddenly were left jobless due to the terrorist
attacks and I am glad that this bill will help them. However, we need
to provide even more benefits for all jobless Americans whatever the
cause of their unemployment.
And finally, my deepest gratitude goes to Chairman Thomas and Ranking
Member Rangel for including a provision in H.R. 3008 to correct a
problem that penalizes Washington and other States with supplemental
unemployment programs for displaced workers who are being retrained.
Congresswoman Dunn and myself brought to their attention the fact that
TAA benefits would be delayed in States like Washington that have taken
the forward-looking step of creating their own supplemental retraining
programs. It makes no sense to put Washington and these other States at
a disadvantage because they have decided to provide their displaced
workers with additional help. I am grateful that Chairman Thomas and
Ranking Member Rangel understood the unfairness of this situation and
agreed to correct it.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3008, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________