[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.

                          ____________________