Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 60 (Tuesday, May 4, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 4, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4794-S4822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

JUMPSTART OUR BUSINESS STRENGTH (JOBS) ACT--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Iraq

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill for
allowing me to have this time. I have been trying to get some time on
the floor and sometimes it is difficult.
I am very encouraged by the way the JOBS bill is moving. I am a
strong supporter of the bill. I support it in particular because I have
been working in four areas. One area is to stop runaway film
production, and we have good incentives in the bill to help us with
that, which is very important to California. Another area is to
encourage the bringing back of capital that has been parked overseas
for a 1-year experiment to see if jobs will be created. It is a very
good provision, and I hope my colleagues will support it as it was
written. That was done in conjunction with Senators Ensign and Smith.
Third, there is a provision to give farmers a tax credit for water
conservation. Fourth, there is a good provision in there to help our
local governments that have been paying the salaries of National
Guardsmen and reservists to help them with that financial burden. So I
am pleased about that.
I am also hopeful we can get the highway bill, the transit bill,
moving because the Senate bill is excellent and I think if the two
parties can reach some accommodation, we should be able to get that
moving. So between the JOBS bill and the highway bill, we are looking
at a tremendous number of jobs. Certainly, regardless of what State one
is in jobs are wanted. These are good jobs and I am very hopeful.
I came today primarily to talk about the situation in Iraq. There are
many casualties of this Iraq war. Above all are the soldiers who will
never return--so far, more than 753 of them. There are the wounded who
will need our help to heal physically and mentally--so far 3,864 of
them. Then there are the families who, along with their pride, will
bear the losses and the scars forever.
There are the innocent Iraqi civilians who are the ones our President
says we are fighting for, and others caught in the middle, the press,
contractors, diplomats. When the President landed on the aircraft
carrier 1 year ago, he told us major combat was over. That was wrong
and our casualties have grown. For the sake of the troops, for the love
of the troops, we must not add yet another casualty to this war. We
must not let truth be a casualty of this war.

[[Page S4795]]

The American people need to know the truth. The American people need
to see the truth. In a democracy, letting the people know the truth is
the essence of what it means to be free. The President says we are
fighting for freedom in Iraq, and that is the current mission. Let us
not stifle those precious values in our own country that we love so
much.
There are some disturbing events going on. Why would we be told by
this administration that paying respect to flag-draped coffins of our
fallen soldiers is somehow a violation of privacy and the American
people would be violating privacy rights if they see those coffins? I
think by now all of America has seen those photographs, photographs of
those coffins draped with the American flag and the care that is shown
to those coffins and those flags by the military. Those pictures we did
see were anything but a violation of privacy. They were a moving
tribute to our troops. How shocking it is that we only saw those
photographs after a Freedom Of Information Act request. We could not
get those photographs. How shocking is it that the woman who actually
got those photographs out to the public was fired, those dignified
pictures.

No one's identity is known when you look at those pictures. All we
know is our brave young troops are making the ultimate sacrifice. As
one grieving parent said when she saw those pictures, she was consoled
at the way her son was treated, with love and respect--and the flag. It
was comforting to her. It wasn't a violation of her privacy. Those
troops didn't have their names put in those pictures or their faces
shown.
Some will say when they view those coffins that we must stay the
course. Others will say change the course. That is what I say:
Internationalize this, have an exit strategy and a clear mission. Our
troops are carrying 90 percent of the burden. So are our taxpayers. So
I believe, yes, we need to change this course. It is not working. But
we need to give the Iraqis a chance to build their own future. It
should be in their hands. It must be in their hands. That is what
democracy is all about. We can teach it, we can explain it, but they
must want it enough to make it work for them.
The idea of internationalizing this war is not partisan. I am proud
to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee where we have agreement
between Senators Biden and Lugar about internationalizing. We have
Senator Hagel who is on that side, Senator Chafee, myself, Senator
Dodd, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Kerry, and really most of the
committee--not all, but most of the committee. So we have a chance to
get out of this morass in a bipartisan way.
Backing up a little bit, this administration didn't want us to see
the pictures of the flag-draped coffins. Seven stations from Sinclair
Broadcasting Group barred viewers from hearing the names of our fallen
heroes. The Sinclair Broadcasting Group is a big supporter of this
administration.
I asked them why shouldn't the faces of our fallen sons and daughters
be seen? Why shouldn't their names be heard? This is America. This is
the greatest democracy in the world. But we could lose it as sure as I
am standing here if our people are kept from the truth. Yes, in every
war people die. In my years in the Congress I voted for two resolutions
to use military force. If you vote for war, you need to see the face of
it, and so do the American people.
There are many faces to war. There is the face of courage, of
bravery, of fellowship. There is the face of fear. Above all, there is
love of country.
As we are learning, sometimes the face of war is brutal. Sherman
said, ``War is hell.'' Clearly he saw it.
The sickening images of the past few days from war prisons in Iraq do
not match with the values and ethics of our country and our people and
our military. Something went terribly wrong, and the people at the very
top are responsible. There was no talk from the very top about getting
to the bottom of this until those pictures made it into the press,
those brutal pictures from the prisons. I know we will fix this. We
will fix it now because some people in the military had the strength of
character to blow the whistle, to tell the truth. I am asking our
Commander in Chief to do more than he has done so far, to speak out
more, to hold some people at the very top accountable because this
scandal has unfortunately hurt our country. It has hurt our cause. It
is undermining the thousands of acts of compassion and caring of our
military during this rough time.

To win the cause we all believe in, the spread of true democracy all
over the world, we need to win by example, not just with speeches but
by example; not just with military might but by gaining the respect of
the world. To win the respect of the world, truth must never be a
casualty of war. Let's hear the names. Let's see the faces. Let's see
the courage and the fear and the bravery and the failings. The American
people are wise. They will decide from all the evidence whether the
course we are on should be continued or whether we need a fresh start,
a new plan--whether it is all worth it.
According to a newspaper report, the Army investigative report
painted a picture of a prison in Iraq completely in disarray. To me,
that is a metaphor for the aftermath of our initial military success,
disarray. There is no plan. There is still no plan. And the problem is
not with our brave military but from the highest civilian leadership.
We need to measure the dollar cost of this war. So far we have spent
$133 billion on the Iraq war, while we struggle to find the means to do
what we must at home, for our children, for our health, for our
environment. I have a quick list. We have spent $133 billion on this
war since March of 2003.
Look at all we spend in a year on drug enforcement, $2 billion. Look
at all we spend on education for our children, $58 billion. Look at all
we spent for a year on afterschool programs, $1 billion. We spent $6.8
billion on Head Start; total highway spending, $34 billion; the
Transportation Security Administration, so important in a war against
terror, $4.6 billion; Coast Guard, $6.8 billion; veterans' health, $28
billion; National Institutes of Health, to find the cures for cancer
and heart disease, $27 billion; total environmental spending, $8.4
billion; and to clean up the most toxic Superfund sites, $1.3 billion.
This administration is telling us we don't have the money, even
though highways and transit is a dedicated tax. Yet we have spent $133
billion in Iraq. It is time for a timeout, to step back from this
morass, to hold people accountable, to change course.
I am going to finish up now because I, too, want to move ahead with
the bills we have on the Senate floor. But I thought it was worth it to
take a few minutes to reflect on where we are.
We have lost 168 Californians to date in this war. I have read their
names and will continue to do that. If anyone says I have no right to
do this--and no one has--but if anyone does want to shut out my words,
I will tell them: This is America, and I love my country because my
country is based on freedom.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:30 the
Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Gregg amendment, to be
followed by a vote in relation to the Harkin amendment, with no second-
degree amendments in order to either amendment prior to the votes;
provided further that all time from 2:15 to 3:30 be equally divided
between the two leaders or their designees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me say this prior to not objecting. This
is the first significant movement we have had on this bill. We are
anticipating moving forward to another couple of amendments and maybe
having two other sets of votes prior to our adjourning for the night. I
think this is good progress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will use whatever time I may consume.
Before the Senator from California leaves the floor, I want to
commend and applaud the Senator from California. No one can ever
question her right and her experience in speaking about the military. I
can remember

[[Page S4796]]

when we served together in the House of Representatives. This new
Congresswoman from the State of California raised issues that became
known throughout the country, such as the toilet seat which cost $600,
and other things. For the first time in this era of Congress somebody
looked at abuses taking place with the spending in the Defense
Department. No one is more qualified to do that than the Senator from
California, especially in light of the fact that almost 200 men and
women from the State of California have been killed in the war. This
does not take into consideration the hundreds of people who have been
maimed, who have lost eyes and limbs and have been paralyzed.
Mrs. BOXER. More than 3,000.
Mr. REID. Certainly no one can question the Senator from California
raising this as an issue. I commend and applaud the Senator from
California for doing this.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, actually we are debating the JOBS bill right
now. There is a lot of conversation that takes us in another direction.
I suspect that is for a very specific purpose--actually to get into
Presidential elections. What we ought to be concentrating on is making
sure there are jobs in this country. Some of those jobs are at stake
right now because the WTO said we violated international law and they
placed a 5-percent penalty on companies from the United States, and
that penalty grows at 1 percent a month.
While we delay on this bill, the price is going up for American
business, and when business declines, the jobs decline. Perhaps that is
a point one side would like to make. Maybe that is what they want to
have happen. I don't want jobs to decline. I don't care who is
President or what the race is. It is very important we get jobs.
Part of the discussion we have entered into under this JOBS bill has
been one about the overtime rule the Secretary of Labor has published.
We have heard a lot of comments about overtime from our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle. I want people to know the rest of the
story. I want people to be aware of the smokescreen that covers
election year politics with misleading rhetoric about overtime pay. It
is time to strip rhetoric from reality, look through the smokescreen,
and see who is really helped and hurt by Senator Harkin's attempt to
block the Department of Labor from updating the rules governing
overtime eligibility for white-collar workers. That is right, the word
is ``updating.'' The Department was told by GAO the rule needed to be
updated. The rule was outdated. The rule referred to things people
cannot possibly comply with because nobody knows what they are anymore.
It is confusing as well.
The Senator from Iowa has proposed keeping the trial lawyers' dream.
He wants to keep the gray area in the bill as an addition to the rule.
Yes. There is a gray area. I can tell you this mostly affects small
businesses. I can tell you small businesses realize it is going to cost
them about $375 million a year in overtime. I don't know how we can
talk about a decrease in overtime when it costs them $375 million more
in overtime, but to have the gray area cleared up they are willing to
do that. Why are they willing to do that? Because right now that $375
million potential is for lawyers' fees to decide gray areas. Who needs
that? We would rather put the money in the workers' pockets.
This clarifies who gets overtime, but it clarifies it more broadly
than anything we have ever done before. Do you know right now the only
people who know for sure they will get overtime are those who make less
than $8,060 a year? Yes. If you earn over $8,060 a year, you move into
this gray area where you may have to hire an attorney to help you
figure out whether you get overtime. The small businesses have to do
that.
This rule the Department of Labor has issued is going to raise that
$8,060 to $23,660--pretty much triple the amount. It is long overdue.
It needs to be done, and it was willing to be done from the very
beginning.
The Department also put in there that white-collar workers earning
over $65,000 were not assured of overtime. They listened to 75,000
comments and said, We picked the wrong number. It should be over
$100,000.
You notice I mentioned white-collar workers. Blue-collar workers are
exempt and assured of the overtime. It doesn't have the $100,000 limit
on it.
Another thing that disturbs me about the debate we are having is the
implication that without a rule, without a law, there would be no
overtime. I want you to know there are businesses--particularly small
businesses--out there that are not only paying overtime for some
special tasks, but they are paying double time and triple time to be
sure they have the workers they need to do the job.
There needs to be a rule. The rule needs to be one that is newer than
the 50-year-old one so we can understand the jobs that are being talked
about.
Last March, the Department solicited public comments on a proposal to
update these regulations. They received more than 75,000 comments on
the proposal. I happen to believe public comment plays a critical role
in the regulatory process. We want the public to comment on any new
rule being written. We then want the Department to review these
comments and to respond to them. That is how the process is supposed to
work. This is the regulatory process Americans expect and deserve. I
have seen times before when agencies did not pay attention. Then it
became critical for us to do something. That is not the case in this
instance. They listened to the 75,000 comments that were sent in
writing. It is obvious they listened to the comments on this floor, and
they made those revisions in the rule before they published the final
rule. The Department of Labor carefully considered those 75,000
comments. They listened to the concerns of the American people, and
then they did the final overtime rule and they made substantial changes
to the proposal.
I have my own concerns with the proposed rule. In fact, I wrote a
letter to Secretary Chao, along with Senator Collins, asking the
Department to pay particular attention to protecting the overtime
status of public safety officers, veterans, and nurses.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, April 16, 2004.
Hon. Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Chao: We want to take this opportunity to
applaud the Department of Labor's efforts to update and
clarify the rules Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for
Executive, Administrative, Outside Sales and Computer
Employees. The proposed rule revises the definitions of
``executive,'' ``administrative,'' and ``professional,''
employees considered exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act
overtime compensation requirement.
The workplace has dramatically changed during the last half
century. However, the regulations governing the overtime
exemption for such employees remain substantially the same as
they were fifty years ago. As our economy has evolved, new
occupations have emerged that were not even contemplated when
the current regulations were written. The Department of Labor
has undertaken the difficult but necessary task of updating
the rules to reflect the realities of the 21st Century
workplace. In so doing, the Department will extend overtime
protection to an estimated 1.3 million low-wage workers.
The Department of Labor has received approximately 80,000
comments to the proposed rule. We happen to believe that
public comments play a critical role in the regulatory
process. The Department of Labor has the responsibility, and
must be given the opportunity, to review these many comments.
We urge the Department to carefully consider all of the
public comments in crafting the final regulations.
We ask the Department of Labor to pay particular attention
to concerns that have been raised regarding the overtime
status of public safety officers, veterans, and nurses. The
final rules should clearly reflect that the overtime rights
of public safety officers, veterans, and nurses will not be
restricted. These individuals have devoted their lives to
protecting the lives of Americans. They deserve our
protection as well. We also ask the Department of Labor to be
responsive to the needs of small businesses in finalizing and
providing compliance assistance on the rule.
We look forward to the Department of Labor publishing its
final rule that is responsive to the public comments received
and the concerns we mentioned.
Sincerely,
Michael B. Enzi,
Susan M. Collins.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we asked the final rule clearly ensure the
overtime rights of these workers would not

[[Page S4797]]

be restricted. I am very pleased the Department made the changes to
clearly reflect the overtime rights of public safety officers,
veterans, and nurses would not be restricted.
Let me highlight some of changes that were made in the final rule to
better protect the overtime rights of workers and many others.
The final rule states first responders such as police, firefighters,
paramedics, and emergency medical technicians are eligible for overtime
pay. No question; no gray area, it clears it up.
The reference to training in the Armed Forces has been deleted and
clarifies that veteran status does not affect overtime. The veterans
will get their overtime regardless of the training received in the
armed services.
The final rule also states licensed practical nurses do not qualify
as exempt learned professionals and are therefore eligible for overtime
pay.
The final rule retains previous law regarding registered nurses which
assures them of overtime.
The final rule provides blue-collar workers are eligible for overtime
pay.
To be considered exempt from overtime, the salary level for highly
compensated employees is the final rule which has been increased from
$65,000 to $100,000.
The final rule clarifies the contractual obligation under collective
bargaining agreements is not affected.
The final rule maintains the previous law requirement that exempt
administrative employees must exercise discretion and independent
judgment.
The final rule clarifies there is no change to current law regarding
the educational requirement for the professional exemption.
Significant changes were made to address the concerns raised about
the proposed rule. This is exactly how the public comment period is
designed to work and exactly how it did work in this situation. The
regulatory process worked, and we have a final rule that is better for
both workers and employers.
Again, we are talking about the small businessmen who do not have
time to go through a lot of this or have the ability to hire attorneys
to figure these things out. We need to keep it simple and
understandable. The rule does that.
Before the final rule was published, my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle stood in the Senate and blasted the proposed rule on the
very issues that the final rule corrects. The Senator from Iowa still
wants to block the Department of Labor from updating the rules
governing overtime pay for white collar employees. This would, in
effect, tell the American people that the public's role in the
regulatory process means nothing. This would say those 75,000 comments
mean nothing. This would leave complex and confusing rules that have
not been significantly changed in 50 years. We owe all our constituents
more than that.
When I am back in Wyoming, I like to hold town meetings to find out
what is on the minds of my constituents. At each town meeting there is
usually someone in attendance quite concerned about government
regulations. I am often told to rein in big government and keep rules
simple, keep them current, keep them responsive, keep them
understandable for small business, and make sure they make sense in
today's ever-changing workplace.
My colleague on the other side of the aisle would take the opposite
approach. Instead of keeping it simple and current, he wants to keep
all of the gray areas from before and impose them on a second set of
regulations. That is what we need--multiple sets of regulations; now a
misunderstandable set with a new set imposed on it, protecting the old
set so the trial attorneys' dream still exists. He wants to prohibit
the Secretary of Labor from updating the outdated rules regarding white
collar employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime
requirements. Simply put, it is an attempt to reject the new, turn back
the clock, and look to yesterday for the answers to tomorrow's
problems. The amendment keeps the confusion. It is an approach that is
doomed to failure. I am opposed to it.
There is no question the workplace has dramatically changed during
the last half century. The regulations governing white collar
exemptions, however, remain substantially the same as they were 50
years ago. The existing rule takes us back to the time when workers
held titles such as straw boss, keypunch operator, leg man, and other
occupations that no longer exist today. Our economy has evolved. New
occupations have emerged that were not contemplated when the
regulations were written. A 1999 study by the General Accounting
Office, GAO, recommended that the Department of Labor comprehensively
review current regulations and restructure white collar exemptions to
better accommodate today's workplace and to anticipate future workplace
trends. This is precisely what the Labor Department has done.
What will Senator Harkin's effort to block the final rule do? It will
set the clock back to 1954 and try to force a square peg--the 21st
century jobs--in the round hole of the workplace 50 years ago. Worse,
it keeps the gray areas of the past rule instead of clarifying. This
obstruction will undermine the Department of Labor efforts to extend
overtime protection to an additional 1.3 million low-wage workers.
Under the old rule, only those workers earning less than $8,060 a year
are automatically protected for overtime pay. The Department's new rule
will raise this threshold to $23,660 a year. The final rule provides
lower income workers with the protection they deserve.

By undermining the Department's efforts to better protect lower
income workers, who is this amendment going to protect? The Department
determined that few, if any, employees earning between $23,660 and
$100,000 will lose their overtime pay under the new rule. The
Department estimates that 107,000 employees who are earning over
$100,000 could--could but not necessarily would--lose their overtime.
Could our colleagues be willing to deny overtime pay for an additional
1.3 million low-wage workers in order to protect the overtime for the
107,000 workers earning above $100,000? Is Congress going to undermine
the purpose of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is to protect low-
wage workers?
The Senator from Iowa and his effort to block the final overtime rule
will not protect first responders, veterans, blue collar workers, or
nurses. The final rule has been improved to clearly protect the
overtime rights of these workers. Therefore, the opponents of updating
and clarifying the white collar overtime rule had to come up with new
objections. No lawsuits necessary, it is very clear. That is what the
Department intends.
On April 13, the AFL-CIO released and began soliciting contributions
for a political TV ad attacking the Department of Labor final overtime
rule. Here is what is interesting about that: That attack came a week
before the final rule was publicly available, before they knew what was
in it. Such tactics suggest a greater interest in playing election year
politics than in protecting workers.
Let me respond to some misleading claims about the final rule. Some
have claimed that team leaders will lose overtime pay under the final
rule. In fact, the new rule will guarantee overtime protection for blue
collar team leaders and is more protective of overtime pay for white
collar team leaders. Furthermore, there is no change to current law
regarding the overtime status of computer employees, financial services
employees, journalists, insurance claims directors, funeral directors,
athletic trainers, nursery schoolteachers, or chefs.
It is time to get beyond the election year rhetoric and misleading
information about who is supposedly harmed by the Department's new
overtime requirements; therefore, I am supporting the amendment offered
by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire to require the final overtime
requirements to safeguard the overtime rights of workers earning less
than $23,660 and certain categories of workers that some erroneously
claim would lose overtime rights. His amendment very specifically names
those and assures those rights. It is in the rule as well. I am
confident the final regulations published by the Department of Labor on
April 23 already do that, too.
The Gregg amendment serves to make it clear that it is the intent of
Congress to ensure that the overtime rights of 55 listed occupations
and job classifications are not weakened. These occupations and job
classifications include the team leaders, registered nurses, the
licensed practical nurses, oil and gas workers, refinery workers,

[[Page S4798]]

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

The Harkin amendment effectively blocks the Department from extending
overtime pay to low-wage workers and updating confusing overtime
requirements. In contrast to the Harkin amendment, the Gregg amendment
does not undermine the Department of Labor efforts to update and
clarify the overtime requirements and extend overtime protection to 1.3
million low-wage workers and clear up these gray areas that just help
the attorneys. The amendment offered by Senator Gregg will ensure that
the overtime rights are guaranteed to those 1.3 million low-wage
workers, strengthened for another 5.4 million workers, and clarified
for all workers and employers.
The antiquated and confusing white collar exemptions have created a
windfall for trial lawyers. Ambiguities and outdated terms have
generated significant confusion regarding which employees are exempt
from overtime requirements. The confusion has generated significant
litigation and overtime pay awards for highly paid white collar
employees. Wage and hour cases--this is important--now exceed
discrimination suits as the leading type of employment law class
action. The amendment assures those gray areas will stay, causing court
action right now. The new rule clarifies and requires these areas be
cleared up, but more clearly states the people who will absolutely get
overtime. It states who will be entitled now. It protects the workers
and puts the money in the workers' pocket, not in legal action. If
these rules are clear, employers will know when they are complying with
the law. This is important, particularly and especially for small
business. That is for whom I always make my pleas.
Small businesses are the only ones being punished by the rules. They
don't have the specialists to determine the gray areas. So they wind up
in court having to solve the gray areas after the fact. It is much
better to solve it before the fact. We have to worry about small
businesses which should not have to rely on lawyers or accountants to
tell them how to pay their employees.
The Department of Labor has estimated these new regulations are going
to cost employers an additional $275 million on an annual basis.
However, the new overtime rule will provide much needed clarity.
As a former small business owner, I know employers want to be able to
pay their workers, not their lawyers. The Harkin blocking amendment
would only add to the current state of confusion. Instead of preserving
overtime rights, which the Harkin amendment purports to do, it will
create even more complexity and litigation, piling rule on rule.
The blocking amendment creates a two-tiered scheme which would
require two different tests to determine a worker's overtime status.
The present gray area and the other one would have to be worked to be
combined. So anything that would have been a gray area before will
still be a gray area. It will freeze workers in jobs they have
outgrown. The blocking amendment will mire the final overtime
regulation in years of litigation, likely preventing them from ever
taking effect.
The only clear winners for the effort to block the new rule will be
the trial lawyers who will benefit from a continued state of confusion.
Most people would prefer to live in a different state than that. We are
spending taxpayer dollars sorting through cases that could be solved
with clarity.
Under the blocking amendment, workers will still have to wait years
for a court to act before they could receive the overtime pay they
deserve. Why should the United States stand in between workers and
their overtime pay? We need to defeat the blocking amendment that would
block the final rules from taking effect. We need to ensure that
American workers deserving of overtime pay will see their hard work
reflected in their paychecks, not in litigation.
Today's Washington Post editorial urges lawmakers to hold off
blocking the new overtime rules from taking effect. I ask unanimous
consent to print the editorial in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, May 4, 2004]

Overtime Improvement

Last year the Labor Department drew widespread criticism
for proposed changes to overtime rules for white-collar
workers. We agreed with critics who said the new rules tilted
to employers and risked depriving too many workers of pay to
which they are entitled. Now Labor has revised its proposal,
and the new rules, while still worrisome in some respects,
are substantially improved.
Unions and their allies, with some basis for being
suspicious of this administration's attitude toward workers
in general and the overtime question in particular, argue
that the regulations still would unfairly jeopardize the
overtime rights of millions of workers. They are pressing for
a Senate vote, expected today, that would block the rules
from taking effect. We think lawmakers should hold off. If
the regulations are inconsistent with the federal law
designed to protect the right to overtime pay, they can be
challenged in court. And if employers exploit the regulations
to unfairly deny overtime pay to workers, they, too, are
subject to being sued. In the meantime, the new rules offer
some significant benefits for workers.
At issue is the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
which guarantees time-and-a-half overtime pay for those who
work beyond the standard 40-hour week. That 1938 law makes an
exception for white-collar workers--those in executive,
administrative and professional positions. Figuring out who
falls into this category has become a particularly byzantine
area of labor law, and the regulations outlining the
exceptions haven't been updated for 50 years.
The Labor Department's changes would guarantee overtime
rights for workers who earn less than $23,660 a year, even if
they are ostensibly white-collar. That's up from the current,
woefully outdated level of $8,060 and a slight increase over
the original proposal. It would have been even better to
adjust the salary level to keep pace with inflation (bringing
it to about $28,000) and --given that it took three decades
to make this change--to build in indexing for inflation. At
the higher end of the income scale, the new rules would make
workers who earn more than $100,000 largely exempt from
overtime eligibility, a significant increase from the
original proposal, which would have capped overtime rights at
$65,000.
The more complicated issue involves changes in determining
which workers fall into the category of executive,
administrative or professional employees not entitled to
overtime pay. The department says it expects that few, if
any, workers would lose overtime protections; labor groups
insist otherwise.
Opponents point to such provisions as the ``concurrent
duties'' rule, which would permit workers to be considered
executives ineligible for overtime even if they perform non-
managerial jobs. For example, assistant managers could stock
shelves, cook food, serve customers and still be
``executives'' if their ``primary duty'' is management.
Another provision would allow workers to be considered exempt
``administrative'' employees if they lead a team on a ``major
project,'' including improving workplace productivity.
Depending on how they are implemented, these exemptions,
and others, could be reasonable reflections of a modern
workplace, or they could be abusive incursions on workers'
overtime rights. What's needed now is not to block these
regulations but to ensure that they are vigorously enforced
with an eye to protecting the vulnerable workers the law was
intended to benefit.

Mr. ENZI. The Washington Post states:

What's needed now is not to block these regulations but to
ensure that they are vigorously enforced with an eye to
protect the vulnerable workers the law was intended to
benefit.

I urge my colleagues to support the Gregg amendment which will allow
the Department of Labor to provide clearer and fairer overtime rights
for workers. I also urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Harkin's
reform blocking amendment which will only line the pockets of the trial
lawyers.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, last year, the administration proposed rules
that would force millions of workers to work longer hours for less pay.
Firemen, nurses, policeman, factory workers faced 50, 60, even 100 hour
work weeks at 40 hour-work-week rates of pay. Two years of technical
college education, military training, or even a few administrative
duties would have been enough to deny workers overtime--permanently.
In response to majority votes in both Houses of Congress--and public
outcry throughout the Nation--the administration recently issued a
modified rule governing overtime. And that's good, but not good enough.
While the new rule is an improvement, it still comes up short.
Thousands, maybe millions, will be left working more for less--and that
is just wrong.

[[Page S4799]]

The law governing overtime, the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, was
designed in the 1930s to encourage companies to stick to a 40-hour work
week. At that time, employers routinely required workers to put in 7
days a week, 10, 12, even 15 hours a day. That left the workers with
jobs no time for rest, family, or even their own health. And it left
many others in those tough times without jobs at all. The choice was
harsh--work yourself to death in order to feed your family, or starve
your family and yourself trying to survive jobless during the Great
Depression.
In passing the FSLA, Congress hoped that the required ``time and a
half'' for overtime work would be an incentive to employers to stick to
a 40-hour work week. Today, that goal is still distant as companies
routinely require workers to work more that 40 hours. American workers
work more hours than any other industrialized nation, except South
Korea. And the overtime pay, rather than being a disincentive to
employers, has become a necessary income source for many American
families.
That overtime comes at a high price for most American workers. It
means less time with family, fewer school events attended, and soccer
games missed. Like in our past, the worker's choice is a harsh one--
earn the extra income needed to meet a family's material needs, but
sacrifice the family time that meets their emotional needs. If the
Administration prevails, thousands, maybe millions, of hardworking
families will see their sacrifices seriously devalued.
The administration argues it needs to make these changes to make it
easier for business to correctly classify its workers. But this rule is
unlikely to clarify anything for small business. The rule, with all the
support material, is over 500 pages. We have not simplified anything.
New court cases will be brought, and new guidance will be written.
Employers will still struggle with the issue of who their professional
employees are, and who is management. The very people that the
administration is trying to help are unlikely to find this easier to
understand.
The new rule also contains troubling exemptions of entire jobs and
industries. It exempts from overtime ``team leaders,'' even though
these employees may have no supervisory role, or any real authority
over the people they are supposed to be leading. Other groups of
workers are classified as exempt by the Department of Labor, with
little discussion. Certain industries have worked for years to get out
of paying overtime to their workers--and the rule's list of exemptions
reads like a roll call of those that succeeded. For reasons unclear,
even after 500 pages of explanation, journalists, personal trainers,
financial services workers, and computer industry workers--to name just
a few classes--are summarily ineligible for overtime.
The current overtime rules are not perfect; they were written many
years ago in a different industrial age. They should be updated; the
wage thresholds should be changed. But the administration's rule--even
in its more moderate incarnation--does much more than update. It
changes the fundamental nature of the overtime portions of the FSLA--
from rules designed to fairly compensate workers for onerous overwork
to a system where certain favored industries can return to a
depression-era policy of more work for less pay.
We all believe that hard work should be rewarded. Our country
achieved greatness through the sacrifices and sweat of our working men
and women. Today, sadly, these workers are not celebrated, but
squeezed--forced to work more for less by harsh international
competition from countries with few or no labor standards and faceless
international conglomerates with no concept of family or community. We
have a choice in this matter. We can let unfettered economic pressure
lower wages in this country and around the world, or we can work to
uphold standards here, and demand them around the world. Any weakening
of the overtime rules is a step down on the ladder of economic
progress.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last year the White House proposed
redefining the job descriptions of millions of workers and thus
eliminating their right to Federal overtime protection.
After several in this Chamber raised serious concerns over such a
change, the administration released final rules that make significant,
but insufficient, changes to those draft rules. Left alone, these rules
will take affect later this year.
I support the Harkin amendment because it is sensible and protects
hardworking employees. The amendment simply prevents the White House
from implementing changes in existing overtime laws that reduce the
number of jobs protected by those laws.
The stated objective of the administration is to increase worker
protection. This being the case, I would think this amendment would be
an easy accommodation for the President to make.
However, if the numbers of the Department of Labor are correct, then
more the 117,000 individuals could lose overtime protection. If they
are wrong, it could be millions.
These rule changes would wipe out overtime pay protections and
increase work hours. In California alone, several hundred thousand
workers could lose their Federal overtime protection. However, State
law will continue to protect most workers from the deleterious effects
of this rule change. But some public employees and many in the film
industry won't be so lucky.
Although most workers in California will maintain their right to
overtime through protections granted by State law, the rule change
represents a movement in the wrong direction when it comes to enhancing
worker protections.
As we all know, losing overtime pay protections would also result in
huge pay cuts for many workers. This is an issue of fairness. Our
workers are more productive then ever and yet President Bush feels that
it is necessary to penalize those very individuals who have literally
built this Nation.
Those hurt most will be disproportionately women and minority. They
will be mostly middle and lower income. They will be struggling to make
ends meet and they will be worrying about paying the mortgage.
Given the still high unemployment rate and the uncertainty still
plaguing our economy, this is not the time to be making it harder for
workers; rather, it is a time when we should be helping all workers
achieve fairness in the workplace.
It is well known that by requiring companies to respect the 40-hour
work week, we encourage businesses to hire additional workers. With
more than 8 million people still out of work, we should continue to
encourage companies to maximize employment while respecting the
workforce they have.
I urge my colleagues to support the Harkin amendment.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is appropriate on a trade bill such as
the one now pending before the Senate, that we, at long last, engage in
a debate about the standard of living for American workers.
The establishment of the 40-hour work week and a worker's right to
overtime pay in 1938, fulfilled President Franklin Roosevelt's promise
to workers to end starvation wages and intolerable working hours.
That same year, President Roosevelt called it ``the most far-
reaching, far-sighted program for the benefit of workers ever adopted
here or in any other country.'' It is unsettling to watch, 55 years
later, as a successor to President Roosevelt seeks to limit the scope
of that far-reaching legislation.
President Bush's overtime rule promotes a thoroughly un-American
notion of fair compensation for some, but not for all.
Through its overtime rule, the Bush administration has sought to
dictate who will receive overtime pay and who will not. It has sought
to dictate whose extra work will be recognized and valued and whose
will not.
While guaranteeing overtime pay for some workers, the Bush
administration rule would take it away from registered nurses, nursery
school teachers, cooks and chefs, and employees of the financial
services industries. It would take overtime away from insurance claims
adjusters; sales representatives; and computer network, Internet, and
data base administrators. It would take overtime pay away from so-
called ``team leaders'' in factories, refineries and chemical plants;
from employees who perform administrative, management or professional
work; from television, radio and newspaper journalists.

[[Page S4800]]

The President cannot explain why some workers should be entitled to
overtime pay and others should not. The Labor Secretary cannot explain
why. I doubt that anyone can explain why.
This rule threatens the overtime pay of millions of workers earning
more than $24,000 per year. I hope that workers listening, even if they
do not receive overtime pay, won't be fooled into believing that this
issue does not apply to them. If workers are suddenly no longer
eligible for overtime, what's to stop their bosses from working them 60
hours per week? Or 70? Or 80?
We are told by some that the economy is improving, and workers are
strong enough to endure the loss of their overtime pay.
Whether we call it an economic recovery or the worst job market since
Herbert Hoover; it makes no difference.
The fact is that millions of workers have lost their jobs or have
seen their friends or members of their families lose their jobs. They
have had their work days scaled back from a full work week to half-
days, to half-weeks. They have had to accept cuts in their health care
benefits and pension benefits to keep their employer out of bankruptcy.
These workers have little patience for election-year hyperbole that
prosperity has returned, that wages are adequate.
Workers read about an alarming trade deficit and the outsourcing of
jobs overseas, and they wonder if their job will be next. They see
their health care premiums rising, their savings being depleted, the
specter of unemployment on the horizon, and want to know why their
government cannot do more about it.
Workers wonder if their President understands these fears. Time and
time again, this administration has shown that it does not.
Little by little, the Bush administration is chipping away at the
rights and protections due American workers. It has blocked action on
the minimum wage. It has blocked an extension of unemployment benefits.
It has furthered the erosion of pension and health care benefits. It
has curtailed the safety and health protections won by the labor
movement in the 20th Century.
This is not the record of an administration that understands the
plight of American workers. To the contrary, this is an administration
that has demonstrated a callous--almost smug--disregard for their
plight. This is an administration that has abandoned the very American
ideal of inspiring other nations to improve working conditions and to
lift their working class.

We must not allow ourselves to be deceived by temporary employment
gains which depend on the wasteful exploitation of resources and which
cannot last. Workers should not be satisfied with present conditions.
One worker need not sacrifice his overtime pay to guarantee it to
another. One worker need not forgo his retirement security or health
care security to provide it to another.
In one of his renowned fireside chats to the Nation, President
Roosevelt told workers: ``Do not let any calamity-howling executive . .
. who has been turning his employees over to the Government relief
rolls . . . tell you . . . that [a minimum wage] is going to have a
disastrous effect on all American industry.'' President Roosevelt's
message to workers is unmistakable. Don't let any business lobby, any
elected representative, any President, tell you that a fair wage for
your labor is too much to ask.
After 52 years of public service in Washington, serving in 26
Congresses and with eleven presidents, I am still convinced that the
American people retain a sincere respect for the promise that extra
work should yield extra benefits. Overtime is a means for workers to
secure for their children a chance at a better life, to ensure for
themselves a secure retirement.
It is an essential part of our social economy. It has the
overwhelming support of the American people in every walk of life, and
the Senate would do workers a disservice by allowing to stand the Labor
Department's thoroughly egregious misinterpretation of Franklin
Roosevelt's promise to them.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
Harkin amendment because I believe it is the right thing to do for New
York's working families.
The Harkin amendment is very simple. It says that not a single worker
who is currently eligible for overtime pay should be denied that right.
And I have yet to hear a compelling reason that some workers currently
eligible for overtime should lose that eligibility. In fact, the
Department of Labor argues emphatically that few if any workers will
actually lose eligibility. Well, if few if any workers will lose
overtime eligibility then I see no reason why the Department of Labor
shouldn't support the Harkin amendment wholeheartedly.
Of course, the reality, as those at the Department of Labor well
know, is that plenty of workers will lose eligibility for overtime.
Let's look at the facts. Registered nurses will be in danger of losing
their eligibility because, for the first time, it will be easier to
classify those who are paid hourly as ``salaried employees.'' It will
also be easier to classify them as ``team leaders.'' Journalists will
lose their automatic overtime protection. Veterans who do not have a 4-
year degree will be much more easily classified as professional
employees and denied overtime eligibility. Workers in the financial
services industry--and I represent many of them--will lose their
overtime protection if they do not exercise independent judgment and
discretion. Chefs. Funeral Directors. Embalmers. Insurance Claims
Adjusters. Salespeople. Software engineers. Computer programmers. All
will be vulnerable to the loss of overtime--and therefore face
significant pay cuts.
The list goes on and on and on. And these are just the consequences
analysts can foresee. What does the loss of overtime mean? Let's put it
in human terms. It's a 25 percent pay cut. It is $161 a week on
average. And--as importantly--it's time with your family. This is not
trivial. At its very core, this issue is about our American values of
work and family. Workers stripped of their overtime protection would
end up working longer hours for less pay. That translates into less
time with their children, less time with their parents, their spouses,
less time to volunteer and contribute to the fabric of our community.
More work hours, for less pay, and less family time--that is not the
American way.
This regulation would make unpaid overtime a household word and make
it easier for bad-faith employers to coerce other workers into
accepting time off instead of overtime pay.
Now, I know there is strong support in this Chamber to protect the
rights of workers to receive overtime because we've done it before.
Back in September, we passed a very similar amendment to prevent the
Department of Labor from promulgating any amendment that denied
overtime from any worker currently eligible. Republicans in my State
crossed party lines to block this regulation in the House--and I
applaud them for doing so. They know how many New Yorkers rely on
overtime pay--not as a luxury, as a necessity.
Back then, despite strong bi-partisan votes in the House and Senate,
the extremist right wing leaders in the House and Senate neglected to
include the language in the final appropriations bill. They made a
mockery of the democratic process.
But with this vote today we prove that we will keep fighting for the
rights of working people. We may be overruled--as we were before--but
we will not back down.
So, I urge my colleagues to support the Harkin and to reject the Bush
administration economic policy of tax cuts for wealthy; pay cuts for
the workers.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Harkin
amendment, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor.
The Bush administration's final overtime regulation is much the same
as its proposed regulation. The largely cosmetic changes that the
administration grudgingly made at the eleventh hour did not change the
rule's result: the loss of overtime benefits for millions of American
workers, many of whom rely on overtime to help support their families.
Making a bad proposal a little better does not mean a good result for
American workers. As a recent editorial in the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel rightly pointed out, ``. . . why hurt anybody? Gain for some
workers

[[Page S4801]]

shouldn't mean pain for others.'' I could not agree more. And this rule
will lead to uncertainty for millions of hard-working Americans and
their families who rely on overtime pay to get by.
It is true that the new rule increases the minimum salary threshold
to $23,660, thereby ensuring that workers who are earning less will be
guaranteed overtime pay. While this is a positive step, it is
regrettable that this increase does not keep up with inflation,
especially since it has been 29 years since the last adjustment.
In addition, this rule exempts so-called ``highly compensated''
employees who earn more than $100,000 per year and have one job duty
that can be classified as administrative, executive, or professional.
This is a new exemption which is not indexed for inflation, thus
leaving even more workers open to a loss of overtime benefits in the
future.
But those who are in the most jeopardy of losing their overtime
benefits may be those workers whose salaries fall between $23,660 and
$100,000. These workers are not guaranteed overtime, and the new duties
tests included in the final rule could strip overtime pay from millions
of these low- and middle-income Americans.
The final rule changes the process by which a worker can be declared
to be exempt from the wage and hour protections of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), thus opening the door to denial of overtime
benefits to millions of workers who currently are entitled to this
extra pay for working more than 40 hours per week.
In essence, this rule, which we will allow to move forward if we do
not pass the Harkin amendment, will create a larger force of employees
who can be required to work longer hours for less pay. This could also
mean fewer opportunities for paid overtime for the workers who would
remain eligible for it.
Who are these workers? They are veterans, registered nurses,
journalists, financial services employees, assistant managers, team
leaders, chefs, insurance claims adjusters, and computer employees,
just to name a few. And several industries successfully lobbied the
administration to include specific exemptions for their employees--
exemptions that have been pending in Congress for a number of years and
that have not been adopted. And the rule contains a roadmap for
employers who wish to find ways around paying overtime to those workers
who are still eligible for it.
The administration's public relations campaign on this rule does not
reflect the reality of this rule. It will deny overtime to millions. It
will, despite the administration's claims to the contrary, have a
negative effect on veterans, on blue collar workers, and on union
members. I find it interesting that the Department of Labor's materials
for this rule call it ``Fair Pay: Overtime Security for the 21st
Century Workforce.'' There is little that is fair about this rule for
the millions of workers who are poised to lose their overtime pay if
this rule takes effect as scheduled in August.
I am also deeply concerned about the process by which this rule was
finalized. A small number of Members of Congress and the administration
were able to run roughshod over the will of a bipartisan majority of
the Senate and the House to resuscitate this proposal by deleting
language that would have blocked it from the omnibus spending bill. I
regret that the administration resorted to veto threats and backroom
negotiations to save this proposal, which is the latest in a series of
assaults on working Americans that have been perpetrated by this
administration. Right out of the gate, the President made it his first
legislative priority to overturn a federal ergonomics standard that was
more than ten years in the making. In addition, this administration has
launched a campaign to aggressively contract out Federal jobs,
systematically dismantle the Federal civil service system, gut worker
protections, and undermine collective bargaining rights. And this
administration contends that outsourcing jobs to other countries is
good for the American economy.
With so many long-term unemployed workers and others working more
than one job and depending on overtime just to make ends meet, it is
unfortunate that the administration dug in its heels on a proposal to
deny overtime to many of those who need it most. And it is unfortunate
that the final rule does so little to improve the proposed rule, which
a majority of the Senate and the House are on record against.
I urge support for the Harkin amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent each side be allowed
an extra 3 minutes. So the vote, instead of being at 3:30, would be at
3:36 or thereabouts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the time on this side be allotted
8 minutes to Senator Harkin, 7 minutes to Senator Kennedy, 7 minutes to
Senator Dodd, and 5 minutes to Senator Specter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe I have been yielded 5 minutes
by the Senator from Iowa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator has 5 minutes on this side and 5 minutes on
the majority side, a total of 10.
Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry: Is it true that I have 10
minutes?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we will find it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed for 10 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset I wish to put on the record
my concerns about not being protected on time. Through my deputy, I had
called the cloakroom to advise that I wanted to speak on the bill. I
had intended to come to the floor and to ask some questions of the
Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and the proponent from New Hampshire,
Senator Gregg. I would have objected to a time agreement had I been
notified, if I have to be on the floor to protect my rights at all
times. My deputy asked for 10 minutes, which was not my instruction,
but that is my problem. But then I didn't even have 10 minutes.
When I came out I found there was time allotted, but to get 10
minutes I had to negotiate with Senator Grassley. Senator Grassley
didn't want to give me time because I would end up with Senator Harkin,
although I had intended to try to find out a little more about the two
pending amendments. So I think we have to be a little more considerate
about Senators who notify the cloakroom that they want time so their
rights are protected so that every Senator does not have to sit here
all day long.
The Appropriations subcommittee which I chair, the Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, had a hearing this
morning. This is a very complicated regulation. I had intended to try
to have a colloquy with a number of Senators to find out a little more
about what this regulation really means.
On the face of it, as we had discussed at the hearing this morning,
there is very little change between current regulation on
administrative employees and the proposed final regulation. For
example, the current regulation defines administrative employees as
``customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent
judgment.'' Compare that with the final regulation on administrative
employees: ``Primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and
independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.''
So in both instances they are talking essentially about exercising
judgment and exercising discretion and independent judgment.
When we questioned the Department of Labor representative at the
hearing this morning, there was very little added by the additional
phrase ``with respect to matters of significance.'' That is so
generalized as hardly to clarify anything to avoid litigation. In the
context where the principal complaint for having a new regulation is to
avoid litigation, it hardly changes or clarifies anything.
A similar situation exists with the definition of professional
employees where it is stated on the current regulation, professional
employee is defined ``primary duty of performing work requiring
knowledge of an advanced type

[[Page S4802]]

in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged
course of specialized intellectual instruction and study.''
Contrast that with the new proposed final regulation defining
professional employees: ``Primary duty of performing work requiring
knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning
customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized
instruction.'' It is virtually identical, hardly going to clarify
matters to eliminate litigation.
Then on the proposed final regulation, defining customarily can mean
the employee has attained the knowledge through ``a combination of work
experience and intellectual instruction.''
The point is, the new proposed regulation adds virtually nothing to
the regulation which is pending. It is true that it has been a long
time since the regulation was amended. I subscribe to the generalized
view that if we could make the regulation clearer to avoid litigation,
that would be a very important objective. But in the course of an
extended hearing this morning, where we heard from the representative
of the Department of Labor and two witnesses who were for the final
proposed regulation and two against, there is no indication that this
new regulation is going to clarify anything at all.
One of the issues raised this morning was how many workers would be
affected. The sum and substance of the testimony in an exchange among
the witnesses was that the 1.3 million workers who were supposed to
have additional overtime is an inflated figure. I don't have time in
the 10 minutes allotted to go into greater detail on that particular
point.
There has been added to the proposed regulation a new concept of a
team leader which is not in existing law and would allow employers to
deny overtime pay to workers who ``lead a team of other employees
assigned to complete major projects,'' even if there is no direct
supervisory responsibility.
Now, in addition, this term ``team leader,'' I think, is going to
provide additional complexity, so that a proposed final regulation
here, instead of simplifying and directing and being an effective
instrumentality to eliminate litigation, appears to me to be no advance
over the current regulation, and when you come down to the injection of
a new concept of team leader, it creates additional complications.
To repeat--something I don't like to do--I hoped to have a discussion
with the proponents of both measures to shed some light on it. This is
a very important matter, regulating overtime pay, which deserves a lot
more attention than it is getting on the floor of the Senate today. I
wish my rights had been protected by the cloakroom, or I would have
been here to object to a time agreement so I could have participated in
drawing out some of these important issues to try to achieve a result
based upon a fuller understanding of this proposed regulation.
On the current state of the record, I am opposed to the proposed
regulation. I think the amendment offered by Senator Gregg is a step in
the right direction. I intend to support the Harkin amendment.
I thank the managers of the bill for scraping together a full 10
minutes for me.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BAUCUS. There is no time to yield. There is a consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I commend our colleague from
Iowa for his effort on the overtime pay issue. Clearly, he has
attracted the attention of the administration and others. We in
Congress have, on two recent occasions rejected the administration's
proposals that would modify the overtime rules crafted back, as the
Senator from Wyoming pointed out, in the 1930s, with the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Over the years, we have changed the Fair Labor Standards Act when it
comes to overtime. Those changes have historically expanded how
overtime could be used or under what job categories it could be used.
There has not been a single instance in the nearly 70 years since the
act was written where there has been a constriction of the overtime
provisions.
This is a historic moment. The Senate will vote in 30 minutes as to
whether this Congress will, for the first time since the 1930s, limit
the ability of people who work to collect overtime in more than 800 job
categories. The Senator from New Hampshire said we apologize, we are
going to take 55 job categories and we are going to exclude them from
being adversely affected by the rules when it comes to overtime. As my
colleague pointed out, in fact there were some 889 different job
categories that could be affected by this rule.
Clearly, what we are talking about is restricting the ability of
people who work more than a 40-hour week to be able to collect overtime
pay. For people who do collect overtime pay, that money amounts to 25
percent of the income they take home. Who are we talking about?
Clerical workers, nursery school teachers, cooks, and nurses to name
but a few. These are the people who depend upon overtime pay in order
to make ends meet.
You don't have to have a Ph.D in economics to know what is going on
with families and their incomes today and their abilities to make ends
meet. It was reported a few years ago how much of the income families
earn can be put aside for savings, or that they could apply to college
tuition for their children in the future. Today we know the ability of
the middle-income family to save, put money aside, and purchase
necessary items for their families has been severely restricted. This
is yet one further attempt to make it more difficult for these families
who need the extra overtime pay to make ends meet.

People who are stripped of these overtime protections would end up
working longer hours for less pay. Does anybody believe this
administration's Department of Labor is trying to expand overtime pay?
That is not why the business community is supporting this rule change,
because they want to expand overtime pay. The administration clearly
wants to restrict it and redefine job categories that will allow them
to do so.
Also, I suggest the rule works adversely in terms of job creation.
The Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted nearly 70 years ago to create
a 40-hour workweek and require that workers be paid fairly for any
extra hours. Especially in times like these, it is an incentive for job
creation because it encourages employers to hire more workers, instead
of forcing current employees to work longer hours. So it creates jobs.
Obviously, if you don't have to pay overtime, you can get that one
person to work longer hours for less pay. We should be trying to create
jobs in this country--instead, we have lost nearly 3 million in the
last 39 months; in fact, some 8 to 10 million people are out of work in
this country. Further, this is vitally important to the 40-hour
workweek. If employers no longer have to pay extra for overtime, they
will have incentive to demand longer hours, and workers will have less
time to spend with their families. People already know how difficult it
is to balance work and family. Many single parents raising children, or
two income earners are holding more than one job to meet the family's
financial obligations.
This is a very important issue to working families and it is
important for them to know this Congress will stand up for them on
something as basic as the ability for them to earn overtime pay when
they put in the extra hours. I also want to add that the job
classifications being proposed by my friend from New Hampshire in his
amendment are too vague and will invite litigation. My friend from
Wyoming pointed out we ought to be trying to discourage litigation. I
agree. But the adoption of the Gregg amendment, without the Harkin
amendment, seems to do nothing but open up that door to litigation.
For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the Harkin
amendment and send a final message to the administration: Do not mess
around with overtime pay. This Congress is going to stand up for
workers' rights to get it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
If neither side yields time, time will be charged equally to both
sides.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum to be
charged equally against both sides.

[[Page S4803]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand I have 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, in my 8 minutes let me try
to clear up some points. A couple of Senators talked about my
amendment. I listened to them and wondered what they were talking
about, that somehow this is convoluted and problematic.
Let's be clear. The amendment pending, which I have offered, does
what the Department of Labor says they want to do. First, there will be
two steps in my amendment. You check the old regulations. If the
employee is required to be given overtime under the old regulations,
that employee will continue to get overtime under the new regulations
because the Department of Labor says they do not want to take overtime
away from anyone now making it. My amendment clarifies it.
Secondly, if the employee is not getting overtime under the present
regulations, but the new regulations allow the employee to get
overtime, the employee gets overtime. So we expand it. They want to
protect and expand overtime, and that is exactly what my amendment
does. It is very clear and very concise.
Senator Specter is right, the new rule, at least what we heard about
in the hearing this morning, is not a clarification. What we heard in
the hearing is more ambiguous, and it is going to lead to much more
litigation.
Let me also talk about the pending Gregg amendment. First of all, I
note that the pending Gregg amendment is an acknowledgment, a real
acknowledgment, that there is a long list of occupations and people who
are in danger of losing their overtime. Obviously, why else would he
have listed those 55. So there is an acknowledgment that a lot of
people will lose their overtime. I thank him for that acknowledgment.
But he lists in his amendment 55 occupations.
Senator Dodd said there are 889 occupations listed by the Department
of Labor. Senator Gregg has picked out 55 and said they will get
overtime. What about the other 800-some occupations? The Gregg
amendment sets up a two-tier system: The 55 who are in and the 834 who
are out. That is a big problem with the Gregg amendment.
Secondly, it is definitional. For example, the Gregg amendment puts
in team leaders, but we do not know what a team leader is because it
has never been defined. What is a team leader?
The Gregg amendment puts in refinery workers. Does that mean oil
refinery or does that cover ethanol plants in Iowa? That is a refinery.
Who is covered by that? We do not know.
Technicians, what is a technician? There is no definition of a
technician. The Gregg amendment covers funeral directors, but how about
embalmers? We don't know. It looks as though the Gregg amendment was
hastily put together. What they did was list 55 people we have talked
about on the floor, but they exclude 834 others. That is a real
problem.
The other point is what is missing. I just sat down and started
drawing up a list of people not in the Gregg amendment: Sheriffs
deputies--how about juvenile justice officers? How about correctional
officers? How about reporters, bookkeepers, retail clerks, police
lieutenants, computer services employees? None of these are covered
under the Gregg amendment. I guess they are just out.
That is the problem with the Gregg amendment. It is a drastic change
in the Fair Labor Standards Act. We have for 50 years said whether or
not you get overtime is based upon the job you do, not upon what you
are called. Senator Gregg now wants to say you will get overtime or not
depending upon what you are called, not upon what you do. That is a big
change.
These 55 that have been listed, I don't mind listing them. That is
all right. But it does not go far enough. It does not cover all of the
people who are out there. It narrowly excludes from exemption of
overtime 55 occupations, some of which are not even well defined and
not defined at all in the Gregg amendment.
I would say it like this: If you have a building and you have 10
entrances to that building and none of them are protected, but you want
to protect the 10 entrances into that building, say, from terrorist
activities--let's say someone comes along and says: I can't protect all
10 of them; I can protect 4. Fine, protect four, but I still have six
others I have to protect. That is how I see the Gregg amendment. He
protects 55, but there are 834 out there that are not listed.
My point is, you can vote for the Gregg amendment--in fact, I will
vote for the Gregg amendment. I don't see it is that big a deal. It is
kind of ridiculous to list 55, but I will vote for it and move the
process along. But if you vote for the Gregg amendment, you can vote
for the Harkin amendment, too, because we come in and cover all 10
doors in that building. We make sure all workers are covered, not just
55, not a narrowly construed list of 55 workers. We cover them all.
I hope my colleagues will support the Harkin amendment because it
does, in fact, ensure that those who get overtime now will continue to
get overtime, and it ensures if you don't get overtime now but the new
rules allow you to get overtime, you will get overtime. The Harkin
amendment covers all workers, not just the narrow list of 55.
Mr. President, I reserve whatever time I may have remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven and a half minutes is reserved for the
Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask to be notified when there is 1
minute remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, let's look at exactly what this issue is
about. This issue is about pay for hard-working Americans. Overtime
represents a quarter of the pay for those individual Americans who
receive overtime. It is a quarter of their pay; $33,000 is the average
annual amount for the person who receives $161 a week in overtime--
$33,000. That is the average. We can have higher, we can have lower,
but those are basically the kind of workers about which we are talking.
I do not know what the average worker making $33,000 a year did to
the Bush administration and why he is so opposed to them making a
decent wage. I know the administration is against the increase in the
minimum wage. They are against the extensions of unemployment
compensation. And this is their third crack attacking overtime and
reducing overtime pay. I say the average families, the working families
are having a more and more difficult time than they have ever had in
trying to make ends meet.
If we look at what has happened to average wages for new jobs,
average wages for new jobs are down 21 percent. If we look at what the
pressure has been on middle-income families during the Bush
administration, the average income has gone down 2 percent; home prices
have gone up almost 18 percent; health and other insurance costs have
gone up 50 percent; tuition, 35 percent; and utilities, 15 percent.
Their income has gone down, and this proposal and the Bush
administration want it to go down further. How are they going to make
ends meet?
What is on the other side? What is the relationship between
corporations and workers during this period of time? Corporate profits
have increased 57.5 percent during the period of the last 3 years, and
workers' wages have gone up 1.5 percent. Still, this administration
wants to increase the corporate profits. That is not right, it is not
fair, it is not just.
This is about special interests. We hear a good deal on the floor of
the Senate that we want to modernize the overtime rules. Let's look at
what this issue is really about.
All we have to do is look at what has happened with the Restaurant
Association. The National Restaurant Association in their letter to the
Department of Labor says:

The National Restaurant Association requests that DOL
include chefs under the creative professional category as
well as the learned professional category.

So they will not be eligible for overtime. What comes out just 10
days ago?

[[Page S4804]]

The Department concludes that to the extent a chef has a
primary duty of work requiring invention, imagination,
originality or talent, such chef may be considered an exempt
creative professional from overtime.

There is the Restaurant Association trying to look out and feather
its own nest, and there is the Bush administration complying with it.
Look at another special interest. Let's take the National Association
of Mutual Insurance Companies, which supports the section of the
proposed regulation that provides that claims adjustors, including
those working for insurance companies, satisfy the FLSA administrative
exemption. Sure enough, they make that request a little over a year
ago, and 2 weeks ago out comes the Department of Labor's answer:

Insurance claims adjustors generally meet the duties
requirements for the administrative exemption whether they
work for an insurance company or other type of company. . . .

The insurance companies ask for these changes in order to increase
the bottom line for the companies, and sure enough the administration
complies. And they say this is about technical adjustments in order to
modernize it? It is about the special interests. That is what has been
happening right down the line with regards to the overtime. We
understand what this is about. This is a blatant and flagrant effort of
the administration in order to increase the bottom line for corporate
America and to shortchange working families. These are workers who are
working hard. They work longer and harder than any other industrial
nation in the world. They are finding they are having a difficult time
trying to make ends meet. This administration has been undermining them
by denying them the unemployment compensation, they are denying an
increase in the minimum wage, and now they are going ahead and denying
them the overtime. It is not right.
Americans understand fairness, and we are talking about fairness in
the job market. For 60 years, overtime has been in place. For 60 years,
we have recognized the importance of paying overtime. The message that
ought to go out to workers all over this country is, if we do not pass
the Harkin amendment, workers beware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
Mr. KENNEDY. I understand I have 1 minute remaining.
Workers beware because without the protections of overtime, those
workers are going to be forced to work longer and longer without
getting the kinds of increases they deserve.
This is about fairness. This is about economic justice. This is about
basically middle-class families. This is about family values in order
to provide for working families to provide for their children. That is
what the issue is. I hope we will support the Harkin amendment.
I am going to vote for the Gregg amendment. I am not really sure how
much protection it applies, but at least it is worthy of support. Let's
do what is really right for American workers and support the Harkin
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty-two seconds on the minority side and 12
minutes on the majority side.
Is the Senator seeking recognition?
Mr. BAUCUS. No.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe we are about ready to vote. A lot
of the debate has occurred, and I think it has been healthy and to the
point. I do believe we should reiterate a couple of points.
First off, the original regulations are not what are at issue. The
original regulations have been fundamentally changed. When the Senator
from Massachusetts says, as I take it to be a fact if he represents it
here, that $33,000 is the average income of people who have incomes
which are overtime related, that is fine. Under this new regulation,
those people are not going to be impacted because this regulation,
first, raises the minimum where one is guaranteed overtime from $8,000
to $23,400. So anybody making $23,400 is guaranteed overtime no matter
what their job classification is.
People between $23,000 and $100,000 are also exempt under this
language because of the way the regulation has been proposed. The only
people who are at risk under this legislation are people earning more
than $100,000 who are working white collar jobs. Blue collar jobs over
$100,000 of income are not at risk. There are potentially 6.7 million
people who benefit from this regulation, directly immediately, because
they are the people who are making up to $23,000. This is not even an
accurate number--it may be much less--potentially 100,000 people making
more than $100,000 may be impacted as a result of holding white collar
positions which are no longer overtime related.
What is important to remember about this regulation is that the
practical implication of it, beyond allowing 6.7 million people to get
overtime for sure, is that it will clarify the playing field. Instead
of having a litigious society where small businessmen and businesswomen
especially have to spend a lot of money on litigation to address
whether a person is getting overtime or is not getting overtime, that
individual will have those dollars which they were going to spend on
legal fees to give their employees benefits or to expand their
activities as an employer and create more jobs. That is what is
important.
We are trying to make it a more understandable playing field.
Remember, the Department of Labor put out a proposal which had some
structural problems. I admitted to that when it came out, but they
listened. Eighty thousand comments later, they changed it. They changed
it substantively to the point where it is now receiving favorable
comment and favorable support from a broad range of different interest
groups, including, for example, The Washington Post as was quoted today
by the Senator from Wyoming when he was making his presentation
earlier.
So it is a major step in the right direction toward first
enfranchising 6.7 million people with a guarantee that they are going
to get overtime, who do not get it today, and in addition making sure
other individuals earning up to $100,000 will be getting their
overtime, and in addition making it clear to the marketplace that
people do not have to litigate and participate in class action suits
all the time to figure out who gets overtime, who does not get overtime
but, rather, there will be a clear path to making that decision which
is so critical to the marketplace and creating certainty in the
marketplace, which is the goal. That is the purpose, to create some
certainty in the marketplace, which reduces the litigiousness and in
turn converts the exercise to getting money into people's pockets
versus creating lawsuits.

The problem with the Harkin amendment is it takes us back to the time
of litigation. There is the old law. There is the new law. They are
layered on top of each other, rolled into each other, so all the
problems of the old law roll into the new law, and we are once again
back into a litigation morass, a classic example of what will probably
happen under the Harkin amendment.
There will be what I call a class ceiling. Businesses and employers
are going to have an employee who is moving up through their system,
who is doing well, who is starting to produce. That employee is
suddenly going to get to a position where if they are given more
responsibility it is going to draw into question whether they have to
be paid overtime. It is going to draw in all of these rules,
regulations, confusions, and Byzantine structures that are put in place
today.
The employer is going to say, hold it, I am not going to promote that
employee because there is just too much opportunity for lawsuits to
occur. I am simply going to go out and hire a new employee to do that
management-related activity or that administrative-related activity
that may imply exemption from overtime rather than promote the up and
coming employee because I do not want to buy the lawsuits that come
with a promotion. A ceiling is going to potentially be created for
people who are in the process of improving their lives in the
employment structure. They are going to be frozen in place as a result
of going the Harkin route.
What the new regulations as proposed by the Labor Department do is
just the opposite. It gives certainty so

[[Page S4805]]

that employers know when they can move people up, when they can give
them promotions, and what the impact of that is going to be on the
overtime rules as they apply to that individual as they are promoted.
Therefore, it is going to give a lot of employees a lot more upward
mobility, which is positive. That is the way we should approach this.
So the Harkin amendment may be well intentioned. Obviously, it is
well intentioned. Everything the Senator from Iowa does is well
intentioned. As a practical matter, it is going to have very severe and
unintended consequences, in my opinion, of limiting promotion within
the marketplace.
I hope people would support my amendment, the purpose of which is to
address all of the issues that have been raised over the last few
months as we have debated this issue about specific areas of employment
categories that have been alleged to have been negatively impacted by
the originally proposed regulation. I listed them all. Every group that
has been allegedly negatively impacted in the last few months by the
proposed regulation has been listed, and it has been said that those
folks in those categories will either get the best of the old law or
the best of the new law. It is a ``win'' or a ``win more'' situation
for those categories.
Why are there not more categories in here? Some people say there are
only 40 or 50 categories. Well, it is because those are the categories
that have been identified most often on this floor as being allegedly
at risk under the old proposed regulation. This basically takes them
off the playing field as being in play.

I happen to believe, and I think people who look at this with some
objectivity believe, that maybe much of this language is redundant. But
we want to make it absolutely clear that these people are not going to
be negatively impacted. So that list of 55 are picked off, are taken
out of play completely, by name. Why do we choose those? Because those
were the ones who, it was alleged under the duties test, might be at
risk. We didn't think they were but we wanted to make it clear they
were not.
So the new proposed regulation, in our opinion, is a major step
forward in giving certainty to the marketplace, in giving 6.7 million
Americans who do not have the guarantee of overtime today a guarantee
of overtime, and making it clear to the businesspeople of this country
that they can invest in creating new jobs, they can move people up the
promotion ladder, and they can spend more money on people's wages
rather than having to spend more money on lawsuits.
Mr. President, at this time I am willing to go to a vote and yield
the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I think I have about 50 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 37 seconds.
Mr. HARKIN. Senator Gregg has it all wrong. To respond, my amendment
says ``duties''--if your duties remain the same, you get overtime. But
if your duties change, there is no glass ceiling. If you are a
secretary today but you become CEO next year, of course you won't get
overtime. That is what my friend from New Hampshire is missing. That is
what is wrong with this amendment. He does it job by job. What I say
is, if your duties are the same, you ought to get overtime. But there
is no glass ceiling. If you go up a ladder, become manager, owner, or
CEO of the company, of course you don't get overtime. That is a bogus
argument.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before we vote, I have an unanimous
consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will please state his request.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Collins amendment, No.
3108, be modified with the changes that are at the desk and that the
amendment be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table; further, I ask that there then be 45 minutes of debate in
relationship to the Wyden amendment, No. 3109, with 15 minutes under
the control of Senator Wyden and 30 minutes under the control of the
chairman or his designee; further, I ask consent that following that
time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relationship to the amendment,
with no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to the vote;
finally, I ask consent that following that vote, Senator Allen be
recognized to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object--of course I will not--I
thank all Senators for going the extra mile to help work out this
agreement. We are taking steps. We are proceeding. I think we will get
this bill passed this year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, the request of the
Senator from Iowa is granted.
The amendment (No. 3108), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

On page 139, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

SEC. __. MANUFACTURER'S JOBS CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to business-related credits), as amended
by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 45S. MANUFACTURER'S JOBS CREDIT.

``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, in the
case of an eligible taxpayer, the manufacturer's jobs credit
determined under this section is an amount equal to 50
percent of the lesser of the following:
``(1) The excess of the W-2 wages paid by the taxpayer
during the taxable year over the W-2 wages paid by the
taxpayer during the preceding taxable year.
``(2) The W-2 wages paid by the taxpayer during the taxable
year to any employee who is an eligible TAA recipient (as
defined in section 35(c)(2)) for any month during such
taxable year.
``(3) 22.4 percent of the W-2 wages paid by the taxpayer
during the taxable year.
``(b) Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--If there is an excess described in
paragraph (2)(A) for any taxable year, the amount of credit
determined under subsection (a) (without regard to this
subsection)--
``(A) if the value of domestic production determined under
section 199(g)(2) for the taxable year does not exceed such
value for the preceding taxable year, shall be zero, and
``(B) if subparagraph (A) does not apply, shall be reduced
(but not below zero) by the applicable percentage of such
amount.
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the term `applicable percentage' means, with respect to
any taxable year, the percentage equal to a fraction--
``(A) the numerator of which is the excess (if any) of the
modified value of worldwide production of the taxpayer for
the taxable year over such modified value for the preceding
taxable year, and
``(B) the denominator of which is the excess (if any) of
the value of worldwide production of the taxpayer for the
taxable year over such value for the preceding taxable year.
``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Value of worldwide production.--The value of
worldwide production for any taxable year shall be determined
under section 199(g)(4).
``(B) Modified value.--The term `modified value of
worldwide production' means the value of worldwide production
determined by not taking into account any item taken into
account in determining the value of domestic production under
section 199(g)(2).
``(c) Eligible Taxpayer.--For purposes of this section, the
term `eligible taxpayer' means any taxpayer--
``(1) which has domestic production gross receipts for the
taxable year and the preceding taxable year, and
``(2) which is not treated at any time during the taxable
year as an inverted domestic corporation under section 7874.
``(d) Definitions and Special Rule.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--Any term used in this section which is
also used in section 199 shall have the meaning given such
term by section 199.
``(2) Special rule for w-2 wages.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1), the amount of W-2 wages taken into account
with respect to any employee for any taxable year shall not
exceed $50,000.
``(e) Certain Rules Made Applicable.--For purposes of this
section, rules similar to the rules of section 52 shall
apply.
``(f) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
taxable year beginning after December 31, 2005.''.
(b) Credit To Be Part of General Business Credit.--Section
38(b) (relating to current year business credit), as amended
by this Act, is amended by striking ``plus'' at the end of
paragraph (29), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (30) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the
end the following:
``(31) the manufacturer's jobs credit determined under
section 45S.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by this
Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 45S. Manufacturer's jobs credit.''.

[[Page S4806]]

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2003.
On page 335, line 8, strike ``December 31, 2004,'' and
insert ``May 31, 2004''.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the yeas and
nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Vote On Amendment No. 3111

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

YEAS--99

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Kerry

The amendment (No. 3111) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3107

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3107.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--47

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Kerry

The amendment (No. 3107) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that once
Senator Allen offers his amendment with respect to home mortgages, it
be set aside only for the purpose of Senator Cantwell offering an
amendment, and that after the clerk reports the amendment by number, it
be immediately set aside, and the Senate resume consideration of the
Allen amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3109, As Modified

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wyden
amendment be modified with the text I send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:

TITLE IX--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

Subtitle A--Service Workers

SEC. 911. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Trade Adjustment
Assistance Equity For Service Workers Act of 2004''.

SEC. 912. EXTENSION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE TO
SERVICES SECTOR.

(a) Adjustment Assistance for Workers.--Section
221(a)(1)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2271(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``firm)'' and inserting
``firm, and workers in a service sector firm or subdivision
of a service sector firm or public agency)''.
(b) Group Eligibility Requirements.--Section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2272) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``agricultural firm)'' and inserting ``agricultural firm, and
workers in a service sector firm or subdivision of a service
sector firm or public agency)'';
(B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or public agency''
after ``of the firm''; and
(C) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``like or directly
competitive with articles produced'' and inserting ``or
services like or directly competitive with articles produced
or services provided''; and
(ii) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
``(B)(i) there has been a shift, by such workers' firm,
subdivision, or public agency to a foreign country, of
production of articles, or in provision of services, like or
directly competitive with articles which are produced, or
services which are provided, by such firm, subdivision, or
public agency; or
``(ii) such workers' firm, subdivision, or public agency
has obtained or is likely to obtain such services from a
foreign country.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``agricultural firm)'' and inserting ``agricultural firm, and
workers in a service sector firm or subdivision of a service
sector firm or public agency)'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or service'' after
``related to the article''; and
(C) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ``or services'' after
``component parts'';
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Taconite pellets produced in the United States shall
be considered to be an article that is like or directly
competitive with imports of semifinished steel slab.''.
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by inserting ``or services'' after ``value-added
production processes'';
(ii) by striking ``or finishing'' and inserting ``,
finishing, or testing'';
(iii) by inserting ``or services'' after ``for articles'';
and
(iv) by inserting ``(or subdivision)'' after ``such other
firm''; and
(C) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking ``for articles'' and inserting ``, or
services, used in the production of articles or in the
provision of services''; and
(ii) by inserting ``(or subdivision)'' after ``such other
firm''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Basis for Secretary's Determinations.--
``(1) Increased imports.--For purposes of subsection
(a)(2)(A)(ii), the Secretary may determine that increased
imports of like or directly competitive articles or services
exist if the workers' firm or subdivision or customers of the
workers' firm or subdivision accounting for not less than 20
percent of the sales of the workers' firm or subdivision
certify to the Secretary that they are obtaining such
articles or services from a foreign country.
``(2) Obtaining services abroad.--For purposes of
subsection (a)(2)(B)(ii), the Secretary may determine that
the workers' firm, subdivision, or public agency has obtained
or is likely to obtain like or directly competitive services
from a firm in a foreign country based on a certification
thereof from

[[Page S4807]]

the workers' firm, subdivision, or public agency.
``(3) Authority of the secretary.--The Secretary may obtain
the certifications under paragraphs (1) and (2) through
questionnaires or in such other manner as the Secretary
determines is appropriate.''.
(c) Training.--Section 236(a)(2)(A) of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2296(a)(2)(A)) is amended by striking
``$220,000,000'' and inserting ``$440,000,000''.
(d) Definitions.--Section 247 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2319) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``or public agency'' after ``of a firm'';
and
(B) by inserting ``or public agency'' after ``or
subdivision'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``or public agency''
after ``the firm'';
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (8) through (17) as
paragraphs (9) through (18), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) The term `public agency' means a department or agency
of a State or local government or of the Federal Government.
``(8) The term `service sector firm' means an entity
engaged in the business of providing services.''.
(e) Technical Amendment.--Section 245(a) of the Trade Act
of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2317(a)) is amended by striking ``, other
than subchapter D''.

SEC. 913. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS AND
INDUSTRIES.

(a) Firms.--
(1) Assistance.--Section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2341) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or service sector
firm'' after ``(including any agricultural firm'';
(B) in subsection (c)(1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting
``or service sector firm'' after ``any agricultural firm'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by inserting ``or service''
after ``of an article''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``articles like or
directly competitive with articles which are produced'' and
inserting ``articles or services like or directly competitive
with articles or services which are produced or provided'';
and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Basis for Secretary Determination.--
``(1) Increased imports.--For purposes of subsection
(c)(1)(C), the Secretary may determine that increases of
imports of like or directly competitive articles or services
exist if customers accounting for not less than 20 percent of
the sales of the workers' firm certify to the Secretary that
they are obtaining such articles or services from a foreign
country.
``(2) Authority of the secretary.--The Secretary may obtain
the certifications under paragraph (1) through questionnaires
or in such other manner as the Secretary determines is
appropriate. The Secretary may exercise the authority under
section 249 in carrying out this subsection.''.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 256(b) of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2346(b)) is amended by striking
``$16,000,000'' and inserting ``$32,000,000''.
(3) Definition.--Section 261 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2351) is amended--
(A) by striking ``For purposes of'' and inserting ``(a)
Firm.--For purposes of''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Service Sector Firm.--For purposes of this chapter,
the term `service sector firm' means a firm engaged in the
business of providing services.''.
(b) Industries.--Section 265(a) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2355(a)) is amended by inserting ``or service''
after ``new product''.

SEC. 914. MONITORING AND REPORTING.

Section 282 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2393) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``(a)
Monitoring Programs.--The Secretary'';
(B) by inserting ``and services'' after ``imports of
articles'';
(C) by inserting ``and domestic provision of services''
after ``domestic production'';
(D) by inserting ``or providing services'' after
``producing articles''; and
(E) by inserting ``, or provision of services,'' after
``changes in production''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Collection of Data and Reports on Services Sector.--
``(1) Secretary of labor.--Not later than 3 months after
the date of the enactment of the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Equity For Service Workers Act of 2004, the Secretary of
Labor shall implement a system to collect data on adversely
affected service workers that includes the number of workers
by State, industry, and cause of dislocation of each worker.
``(2) Secretary of commerce.--Not later than 6 months after
such date of enactment, the Secretary of Commerce shall, in
consultation with the Secretary of Labor, conduct a study and
report to the Congress on ways to improve the timeliness and
coverage of data on trade in services, including methods to
identify increased imports due to the relocation of United
States firms to foreign countries, and increased imports due
to United States firms obtaining services from firms in
foreign countries.''.

SEC. 915. ALTERNATIVE TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

In General.--Section 246(a)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2318(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Eligibility.--A worker in the group that the
Secretary has certified as eligible for the alternative trade
adjustment assistance program may elect to receive benefits
under the alternative trade adjustment assistance program if
the worker--
``(A) is covered by a certification under subchapter A of
this chapter;
``(B) obtains reemployment not more than 26 weeks after the
date of separation from the adversely affected employment;
``(C) is at least 40 years of age;
``(D) earns not more than $50,000 a year in wages from
reemployment;
``(E) is employed on a full-time basis as defined by State
law in the State in which the worker is employed; and
``(F) does not return to the employment from which the
worker was separated.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subparagraphs (A) and (B)
of section 246(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2318(a)(2) (A) and (B)) are amended by striking ``paragraph
(3)(B)'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)'' each place it
appears.
(2) Section 246(b)(2) of such Act is amended by striking
``subsection (a)(3)(B)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)(3)''.

SEC. 916. CLARIFICATION OF MARKETING YEAR AND OTHER
PROVISIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 291(5) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2401(5)) is amended by inserting before the end
period the following: ``, or in the case of an agricultural
commodity that has no officially designated marketing year,
in a 12-month period for which the petitioner provides
written request''.
(b) Fishermen.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
for purposes of chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.) fishermen who harvest wild
stock shall be eligible for adjustment assistance to the same
extent and in the same manner as a group of workers under
such chapter 2.

SEC. 917. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b) and
(c), the amendments made by this subtitle shall take effect
on October 1, 2004.
(b) Special Rule for Certain Service Workers.--A group of
workers in a service sector firm, or subdivision of a service
sector firm, or public agency (as defined in section 247 (7)
and (8) of the Trade Act of 1974, as added by section 912(d)
of this Act) who--
(1) would have been certified eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under chapter 2 of title II of the
Trade Act of 1974 if the amendments made by this Act had been
in effect on November 4, 2002, and
(2) file a petition pursuant to section 221 of such Act
within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act,

shall be eligible for certification under section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974 if the workers' last total or partial
separation from the firm or subdivision of the firm or public
agency occurred on or after November 4, 2002 and before
October 1, 2004.
(c) Special Rule for Taconite.--A group of workers in a
firm, or subdivision of a firm, engaged in the production of
taconite pellets who--
(1) would have been certified eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under chapter 2 of title II of the
Trade Act of 1974 if the amendments made by this Act had been
in effect on November 4, 2002, and
(2) file a petition pursuant to section 221 of such Act
within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act,

shall be eligible for certification under section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974 if the workers' last total or partial
separation from the firm or subdivision of the firm occurred
on or after November 4, 2002 and before October 1, 2004.

Subtitle B--Data Collection

SEC. 921. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Trade Adjustment
Assistance Accountability Act''.

SEC. 922. DATA COLLECTION; STUDY; INFORMATION TO WORKERS.

(a) Data Collection; Evaluations.--Subchapter C of chapter
2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by
inserting after section 249, the following new section:

``SEC. 250. DATA COLLECTION; EVALUATIONS; REPORTS.

``(a) Data Collection.--The Secretary shall, pursuant to
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, collect any data
necessary to meet the requirements of this chapter.
``(b) Performance Evaluations.--The Secretary shall
establish an effective performance measuring system to
evaluate the following:
``(1) Program performance.--A comparison of the trade
adjustment assistance program before and after the effective
date of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002
with respect to--
``(A) the number of workers certified and the number of
workers actually participating in the trade adjustment
assistance program;
``(B) the time for processing petitions;
``(C) the number of training waivers granted;
``(D) the coordination of programs under this chapter with
programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2801 et seq.);
``(E) the effectiveness of individual training providers in
providing appropriate information and training;

[[Page S4808]]

``(F) the extent to which States have designed and
implemented health care coverage options under title II of
the Trade Act of 2002, including any difficulties States have
encountered in carrying out the provisions of title II;
``(G) how Federal, State, and local officials are
implementing the trade adjustment assistance program to
ensure that all eligible individuals receive benefits,
including providing outreach, rapid response, and other
activities; and
``(H) any other data necessary to evaluate how individual
States are implementing the requirements of this chapter.
``(2) Program participation .--The effectiveness of the
program relating to--
``(A) the number of workers receiving benefits and the type
of benefits being received both before and after the
effective date of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act
of 2002;
``(B) the number of workers enrolled in, and the duration
of, training by major types of training both before and after
the effective date of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform
Act of 2002;
``(C) earnings history of workers that reflects wages
before separation and wages in any job obtained after
receiving benefits under this Act;
``(D) reemployment rates and sectors in which dislocated
workers have been employed;
``(E) the cause of dislocation identified in each petition
that resulted in a certification under this chapter; and
``(F) the number of petitions filed and workers certified
in each congressional district of the United States.
``(c) State Participation.--The Secretary shall ensure, to
the extent practicable, through oversight and effective
internal control measures the following:
``(1) State participation.--Participation by each State in
the performance measurement system established under
subsection (b).
``(2) Monitoring.--Monitoring by each State of internal
control measures with respect to performance measurement data
collected by each State.
``(3) Response.--The quality and speed of the rapid
response provided by each State under section 134(a)(2)(A) of
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C.
2864(a)(2)(A)).
``(d) Reports.--
``(1) Reports by the secretary.--
``(A) Initial report.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of enactment of the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Accountability Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives a report that--
``(i) describes the performance measurement system
established under subsection (b);
``(ii) includes analysis of data collected through the
system established under subsection (b); and
``(iii) provides recommendations for program improvements.
``(B) Annual report.--Not later than 1 year after the date
the report is submitted under subparagraph (A), and annually
thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives a report that includes the
information collected under clause (ii) of subparagraph (A).
``(2) State reports.--Pursuant to regulations prescribed by
the Secretary, each State shall submit to the Secretary a
report that details its participation in the programs
established under this chapter, and that contains the data
necessary to allow the Secretary to submit the report
required under paragraph (1).
``(3) Publication.--The Secretary shall make available to
each State, and other public and private organizations as
determined by the Secretary, the data gathered and evaluated
through the performance measurement system established under
subsection (b).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Coordination.--Section 281 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2392) is amended by striking ``Departments of Labor
and Commerce'' and inserting ``Departments of Labor,
Commerce, and Agriculture''.
(2) Trade monitoring system.--Section 282 of the Trade Act
of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2393) is amended by striking ``The
Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor'' and
inserting ``The Secretaries of Commerce, Labor, and
Agriculture''.
(3) Table of contents.--The table of contents for title II
of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 249, the following new item:

``Sec. 250. Data collection; evaluations; reports.''.

Subtitle C--Trade Adjustment Assistance for Communities

SEC. 931. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Trade Adjustment
Assistance for Communities Act of 2004''.

SEC. 932. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this subtitle is to assist communities
negatively impacted by trade with economic adjustment through
the integration of political and economic organizations, the
coordination of Federal, State, and local resources, the
creation of community-based development strategies, and the
provision of economic transition assistance.

SEC. 933. TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITIES.

Chapter 4 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2371 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

``CHAPTER 4--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITIES

``SEC. 271. DEFINITIONS.

``In this chapter:
``(1) Affected domestic producer.--The term `affected
domestic producer' means any manufacturer, producer, service
provider, farmer, rancher, fisherman or worker representative
(including associations of such persons) that was affected by
a finding under the Antidumping Act of 1921, or by an
antidumping or countervailing duty order issued under title
VII of the Tariff Act of 1930.
``(2) Agricultural commodity producer.--The term
`agricultural commodity producer' has the same meaning as the
term `person' as prescribed by regulations promulgated under
section 1001(5) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308(5)).
``(3) Community.--The term `community' means a city,
county, or other political subdivision of a State or a
consortium of political subdivisions of a State that the
Secretary certifies as being negatively impacted by trade.
``(4) Community negatively impacted by trade.--A community
negatively impacted by trade means a community with respect
to which a determination has been made under section 273.
``(5) Eligible community.--The term `eligible community'
means a community certified under section 273 for assistance
under this chapter.
``(6) Fisherman.--
``(A) In general.--The term `fisherman' means any person
who--
``(i) is engaged in commercial fishing; or
``(ii) is a United States fish processor.
``(B) Commercial fishing, fish, fishery, fishing, fishing
vessel, person, and united states fish processor.--The terms
`commercial fishing', `fish', `fishery', `fishing', `fishing
vessel', `person', and `United States fish processor' have
the same meanings as such terms have in the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802).
``(7) Job loss.--The term `job loss' means the total or
partial separation of an individual, as those terms are
defined in section 247.
``(8) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Commerce.

``SEC. 272. COMMUNITY TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

``(a) Establishment.--Within 6 months after the date of
enactment of the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Communities
Act of 2004, the Secretary shall establish a Trade Adjustment
Assistance for Communities Program at the Department of
Commerce.
``(b) Personnel.--The Secretary shall designate such staff
as may be necessary to carry out the responsibilities
described in this chapter.
``(c) Coordination of Federal Response.--The Secretary
shall--
``(1) provide leadership, support, and coordination for a
comprehensive management program to address economic
dislocation in eligible communities;
``(2) coordinate the Federal response to an eligible
community--
``(A) by identifying all Federal, State, and local
resources that are available to assist the eligible community
in recovering from economic distress;
``(B) by ensuring that all Federal agencies offering
assistance to an eligible community do so in a targeted,
integrated manner that ensures that an eligible community has
access to all available Federal assistance;
``(C) by assuring timely consultation and cooperation
between Federal, State, and regional officials concerning
economic adjustment for an eligible community; and
``(D) by identifying and strengthening existing agency
mechanisms designed to assist eligible communities in their
efforts to achieve economic adjustment and workforce
reemployment;
``(3) provide comprehensive technical assistance to any
eligible community in the efforts of that community to--
``(A) identify serious economic problems in the community
that are the result of negative impacts from trade;
``(B) integrate the major groups and organizations
significantly affected by the economic adjustment;
``(C) access Federal, State, and local resources designed
to assist in economic development and trade adjustment
assistance;
``(D) diversify and strengthen the community economy; and
``(E) develop a community-based strategic plan to address
economic development and workforce dislocation, including
unemployment among agricultural commodity producers, and
fishermen;
``(4) establish specific criteria for submission and
evaluation of a strategic plan submitted under section
274(d);
``(5) establish specific criteria for submitting and
evaluating applications for grants under section 275;
``(6) administer the grant programs established under
sections 274 and 275; and
``(7) establish an interagency Trade Adjustment Assistance
for Communities Working Group, consisting of the
representatives of

[[Page S4809]]

any Federal department or agency with responsibility for
economic adjustment assistance, including the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Education, the Department of
Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
Department of Health and Human Services, the Small Business
Administration, the Department of the Treasury, the
Department of Commerce, and any other Federal, State, or
regional department or agency the Secretary determines
necessary or appropriate.

``SEC. 273. CERTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION.

``(a) Certification.--Not later than 45 days after an event
described in subsection (c)(1), the Secretary of Commerce
shall determine if a community described in subsection (b)(1)
is negatively impacted by trade, and if a positive
determination is made, shall certify the community for
assistance under this chapter.
``(b) Determination That Community Is Eligible.--
``(1) Community described.--A community described in this
paragraph means a community with respect to which on or after
October 1, 2004--
``(A) the Secretary of Labor certifies a group of workers
(or their authorized representative) in the community as
eligible for assistance pursuant to section 223;
``(B) the Secretary of Commerce certifies a firm located in
the community as eligible for adjustment assistance under
section 251;
``(C) the Secretary of Agriculture certifies a group of
agricultural commodity producers (or their authorized
representative) in the community as eligible for adjustment
assistance under section 293;
``(D) an affected domestic producer is located in the
community; or
``(E) the Secretary determines that a significant number of
fishermen in the community is negatively impacted by trade.
``(2) Negatively impacted by trade.--The Secretary shall
determine that a community is negatively impacted by trade,
after taking into consideration--
``(A) the number of jobs affected compared to the size of
workforce in the community;
``(B) the severity of the rates of unemployment in the
community and the duration of the unemployment in the
community;
``(C) the income levels and the extent of underemployment
in the community;
``(D) the outmigration of population from the community and
the extent to which the outmigration is causing economic
injury in the community; and
``(E) the unique problems and needs of the community.
``(c) Definition and Special Rules.--
``(1) Event described.--An event described in this
paragraph means one of the following:
``(A) A notification described in paragraph (2).
``(B) A certification of a firm under section 251.
``(C) A finding under the Antidumping Act of 1921, or an
antidumping or countervailing duty order issued under title
VII of the Tariff Act of 1930.
``(D) A determination by the Secretary that a significant
number of fishermen in a community have been negatively
impacted by trade.
``(2) Notification.--The Secretary of Labor, immediately
upon making a determination that a group of workers is
eligible for trade adjustment assistance under section 223,
(or the Secretary of Agriculture, immediately upon making a
determination that a group of agricultural commodity
producers is eligible for adjustment assistance under section
293, as the case may be) shall notify the Secretary of
Commerce of the determination.
``(d) Notification to Eligible Communities.--Immediately
upon certification by the Secretary of Commerce that a
community is eligible for assistance under subsection (b),
the Secretary shall notify the community--
``(1) of the determination under subsection (b);
``(2) of the provisions of this chapter;
``(3) how to access the clearinghouse established by the
Department of Commerce regarding available economic
assistance;
``(4) how to obtain technical assistance provided under
section 272(c)(3); and
``(5) how to obtain grants, tax credits, low income loans,
and other appropriate economic assistance.

``SEC. 274. STRATEGIC PLANS.

``(a) In General.--An eligible community may develop a
strategic plan for community economic adjustment and
diversification.
``(b) Requirements for Strategic Plan.--A strategic plan
shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
``(1) A description and justification of the capacity for
economic adjustment, including the method of financing to be
used.
``(2) A description of the commitment of the community to
the strategic plan over the long term and the participation
and input of groups affected by economic dislocation.
``(3) A description of the projects to be undertaken by the
eligible community.
``(4) A description of how the plan and the projects to be
undertaken by the eligible community will lead to job
creation and job retention in the community.
``(5) A description of how the plan will achieve economic
adjustment and diversification.
``(6) A description of how the plan and the projects will
contribute to establishing or maintaining a level of public
services necessary to attract and retain economic investment.
``(7) A description and justification for the cost and
timing of proposed basic and advanced infrastructure
improvements in the eligible community.
``(8) A description of how the plan will address the
occupational and workforce conditions in the eligible
community.
``(9) A description of the educational programs available
for workforce training and future employment needs.
``(10) A description of how the plan will adapt to changing
markets and business cycles.
``(11) A description and justification for the cost and
timing of the total funds required by the community for
economic assistance.
``(12) A graduation strategy through which the eligible
community demonstrates that the community will terminate the
need for Federal assistance.
``(c) Grants To Develop Strategic Plans.--The Secretary,
upon receipt of an application from an eligible community,
may award a grant to that community to be used to develop the
strategic plan.
``(d) Submission of Plan.--A strategic plan developed under
subsection (a) shall be submitted to the Secretary for
evaluation and approval.

``SEC. 275. GRANTS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, upon approval of a
strategic plan from an eligible community, may award a grant
to that community to carry out any project or program that is
certified by the Secretary to be included in the strategic
plan approved under section 274(d), or consistent with that
plan.
``(b) Additional Grants.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), in order to
assist eligible communities to obtain funds under Federal
grant programs, other than the grants provided for in section
274(c) or subsection (a), the Secretary may, on the
application of an eligible community, make a supplemental
grant to the community if--
``(A) the purpose of the grant program from which the grant
is made is to provide technical or other assistance for
planning, constructing, or equipping public works facilities
or to provide assistance for public service projects; and
``(B) the grant is 1 for which the community is eligible
except for the community's inability to meet the non-Federal
share requirements of the grant program.
``(2) Use as non-federal share.--A supplemental grant made
under this subsection may be used to provide the non-Federal
share of a project, unless the total Federal contribution to
the project for which the grant is being made exceeds 80
percent and that excess is not permitted by law.
``(c) Rural Community Preference.--The Secretary shall
develop guidelines to ensure that rural communities receive
preference in the allocation of resources.

``SEC. 276. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

``(a) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of
this chapter. Before implementing any regulation or guideline
proposed by the Secretary with respect to this chapter, the
Secretary shall submit the regulation or guideline to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives for approval.
``(b) Supplement Not Supplant.--Funds appropriated under
this chapter shall be used to supplement and not supplant
other Federal, State, and local public funds expended to
provide economic development assistance for communities.
``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $100,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, to carry out this
chapter. Amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection
shall remain available until expended.''.

SEC. 934. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Termination.--Section 285(b) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2271 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) Assistance for communities.--Technical assistance and
other payments may not be provided under chapter 4 after
September 30, 2008.''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for title II
of the Trade Act of 1974 is amended by striking the items
relating to chapter 4 of title II and inserting after the
items relating to chapter 3 the following new items:

``Chapter 4--Trade Adjustment Assistance for Communities

``Sec. 271. Definitions.
``Sec. 272. Community Trade Adjustment Assistance Program.
``Sec. 273. Certification and notification.
``Sec. 274. Strategic plans.
``Sec. 275. Grants for economic development.
``Sec. 276. General provisions.''.

(c) Judicial Review.--Section 284(a) of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2395(a)) is amended by striking ``section
271'' and inserting ``section 273''.

SEC. 935. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this subtitle shall take effect on
October 1, 2004.

[[Page S4810]]

Subtitle D--Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance

SEC. 941. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Trade Adjustment
Assistance for Firms Reorganization Act''.

SEC. 942. OFFICE OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title II of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.) is amended by inserting after
section 255 the following new section:

``SEC. 255A. OFFICE OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE.

``(a) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms
Reorganization Act, there shall be established in the
International Trade Administration of the Department of
Commerce an Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
``(b) Personnel.--The Office shall be headed by a Director,
and shall have such staff as may be necessary to carry out
the responsibilities of the Secretary of Commerce described
in this chapter.
``(c) Functions.--The Office shall assist the Secretary of
Commerce in carrying out the Secretary's responsibilities
under this chapter.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for the
Trade Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 255, the following new item:

``Sec. 255A. Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.''.

SEC. 943. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this subtitle shall take effect on
the earlier of--
(1) the date of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) October 1, 2004.

TITLE X--IMPROVEMENT OF CREDIT FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS OF ELIGIBLE
INDIVIDUALS

SEC. 1001. EXPEDITED REFUND OF CREDIT FOR PRORATED FIRST
MONTHLY PREMIUM AND SUBSEQUENT MONTHLY PREMIUMS
PAID PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR
THE CREDIT.

Section 7527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to advance payment of credit for health insurance costs of
eligible individuals) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Expedited Payment of Premiums Paid Prior To Issuance
of Certificate.--The program established under subsection (a)
shall provide for payment to a certified individual (or to
any person or entity designated by the certified individual,
under guidelines developed by the Secretary to achieve the
purposes of this section) of an amount equal to the
percentage specified in section 35(a) of the premiums paid by
such individual for coverage of the taxpayer and qualifying
family members under qualified health insurance for eligible
coverage months (as defined in section 35(b)) occurring prior
to the issuance of a qualified health insurance costs credit
eligibility certificate not later than 30 days after receipt
by the Secretary of evidence of such payment by the certified
individual.''.

SEC. 1002. TAA PRE-CERTIFICATION PERIOD RULE FOR PURPOSES OF
DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS A 63-DAY LAPSE IN
CREDITABLE COVERAGE.

(a) ERISA Amendment.--Section 701(c)(2) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1181(c)(2))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) TAA-eligible individuals.--
``(i) TAA pre-certification period rule.--In the case of a
TAA-eligible individual, the period beginning on the date the
individual has a TAA-related loss of coverage and ending on
the date that is 5 days after the postmark date of the notice
by the Secretary (or by any person or entity designated by
the Secretary) that the individual is eligible for a
qualified health insurance costs credit eligibility
certificate for purposes of section 7527 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 shall not be taken into account in
determining the continuous period under subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Definitions.--The terms `TAA-eligible individual',
and `TAA-related loss of coverage' have the meanings given
such terms in section 605(b)(4)(C).''.
(b) PHSA Amendment.--Section 2701(c)(2) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg(c)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(C) TAA-eligible individuals.--
``(i) TAA pre-certification period rule.--In the case of a
TAA-eligible individual, the period beginning on the date the
individual has a TAA-related loss of coverage and ending on
the date that is 5 days after the postmark date of the notice
by the Secretary (or by any person or entity designated by
the Secretary) that the individual is eligible for a
qualified health insurance costs credit eligibility
certificate for purposes of section 7527 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 shall not be taken into account in
determining the continuous period under subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Definitions.--The terms `TAA-eligible individual',
and `TAA-related loss of coverage' have the meanings given
such terms in section 2205(b)(4)(C).''.
(c) IRC Amendment.--Section 9801(c)(2) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to not counting periods before
significant breaks in creditable coverage) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(D) TAA-eligible individuals.--
``(i) TAA pre-certification period rule.--In the case of a
TAA-eligible individual, the period beginning on the date the
individual has a TAA-related loss of coverage and ending on
the date which is 5 days after the postmark date of the
notice by the Secretary (or by any person or entity
designated by the Secretary) that the individual is eligible
for a qualified health insurance costs credit eligibility
certificate for purposes of section 7527 shall not be taken
into account in determining the continuous period under
subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Definitions.--The terms `TAA-eligible individual',
and `TAA-related loss of coverage' have the meanings given
such terms in section 4980B(f)(5)(C)(iv).''.

SEC. 1003. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY OF SPOUSE OF CERTAIN
INDIVIDUALS ENTITLED TO MEDICARE.

(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 35 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining eligible coverage
month) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Special rule for spouse of individual entitled to
medicare.--Any month which would be an eligible coverage
month with respect to a taxpayer (determined without regard
to subsection (f)(2)(A)) shall be an eligible coverage month
for any spouse of such taxpayer.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 173(f)(5)(A)(i) of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(f)(5)(A)(i))
is amended by inserting ``(including with respect to any
month for which the eligible individual would have been
treated as such but for the application of paragraph
(7)(B)(i))'' before the comma.
(c) Application Period.--The amendments made by this
section shall only apply during the period beginning on
January 1, 2005, and ending on January 1, 2007.

SEC. 1004. IMPROVEMENT OF THE AFFORDABILITY OF THE CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Section 35(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to credit for health insurance costs of
eligible individuals) is amended by striking ``65'' and
inserting ``75''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7527(b) of such Code
(relating to advance payment of credit for health insurance
costs of eligible individuals) is amended by striking ``65''
and inserting ``75''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004.

SEC. 1005. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANTS TO
FACILITATE ESTABLISHMENT OF GROUP COVERAGE
OPTION AND TO PROVIDE INTERIM HEALTH COVERAGE
FOR ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS IN ORDER TO QUALIFY
FOR GUARANTEED ISSUE AND OTHER CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS; CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENT FOR
GROUP COVERAGE OPTION.

(a) In General.--Section 173(f) of the Workforce Investment
Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Use of funds.--
``(A) Health insurance coverage for eligible individuals in
order to obtain qualified health insurance that has
guaranteed issue and other consumer protections.--Funds made
available to a State or entity under paragraph (4)(A) of
subsection (a) may be used to provide an eligible individual
described in paragraph (4)(C) and such individual's
qualifying family members with health insurance coverage for
the 3-month period that immediately precedes the first
eligible coverage month (as defined in section 35(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986) in which such eligible
individual and such individual's qualifying family members
are covered by qualified health insurance that meets the
requirements described in clauses (i) through (iv) of section
35(e)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (or such
longer minimum period as is necessary in order for such
eligible individual and such individual's qualifying family
members to be covered by qualified health insurance that
meets such requirements).
``(B) Additional uses.--Funds made available to a State or
entity under paragraph (4)(A) of subsection (a) may be used
by the State or entity for the following:
``(i) Health insurance coverage.--To assist an eligible
individual and such individual's qualifying family members in
enrolling in health insurance coverage and qualified health
insurance.
``(ii) Administrative expenses and start-up expenses to
establish group coverage options for qualified health
insurance.--To pay the administrative expenses related to the
enrollment of eligible individuals and such individuals'
qualifying family members in health insurance coverage and
qualified health insurance, including--

``(I) eligibility verification activities;
``(II) the notification of eligible individuals of
available health insurance and qualified health insurance
options;
``(III) processing qualified health insurance costs credit
eligibility certificates provided for under section 7527 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
``(IV) providing assistance to eligible individuals in
enrolling in health insurance coverage and qualified health
insurance;
``(V) the development or installation of necessary data
management systems; and
``(VI) any other expenses determined appropriate by the
Secretary, including start-up costs and on going
administrative expenses, in order for the State to treat the

[[Page S4811]]

coverage described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E), or (F)(i)
of section 35(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or,
only if the coverage is under a group health plan, the
coverage described in subparagraph (F)(ii), (F)(iii),
(F)(iv), (G), or (H) of such section, as qualified health
insurance under that section.

``(iii) Outreach.--To pay for outreach to eligible
individuals to inform such individuals of available health
insurance and qualified health insurance options, including
low cost options, outreach consisting of notice to eligible
individuals of qualified health insurance options made
available after the date of enactment of this clause, and
direct assistance to help potentially eligible individuals
and such individual's qualifying family members qualify and
remain eligible for the credit established under section 35
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and advance payment of
such credit under section 7527 of such Code.
``(iv) Bridge funding.--To assist potentially eligible
individuals purchase qualified health insurance coverage
prior to issuance of a qualified health insurance costs
credit eligibility certificate under section 7527 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and commencement of advance
payment, and receipt of expedited payment, under subsections
(a) and (e), respectively, of that section.
``(C) Rule of construction.--The inclusion of a permitted
use under this paragraph shall not be construed as
prohibiting a similar use of funds permitted under subsection
(g).''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Qualified health insurance.--For purposes of this
subsection and subsection (g), the term `qualified health
insurance' has the meaning given that term in section 35(e)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
(b) Funding.--Section 174(c)(1) of the Workforce Investment
Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2919(c)(1)) is amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Authorization
and appropriation for fiscal year 2002'' and inserting
``Appropriations''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) to carry out subsection (a)(4)(A) of section 173--
``(i) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
``(ii) $200,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2004
through 2005; and''.
(c) Report Regarding Failure To Comply With Requirements
for Expedited Approval Procedures.--Section 173(f) of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(f)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Report for failure to comply with requirements for
expedited approval procedures.--If the Secretary fails to
make the notification required under clause (i) of paragraph
(3)(A) within the 15-day period required under that clause,
or fails to provide the technical assistance required under
clause (ii) of such paragraph within a timely manner so that
a State or entity may submit an approved application within 2
months of the date on which the State or entity's previous
application was disapproved, the Secretary shall submit a
report to Congress explaining such failure.''.
(d) Clarification of Requirement To Establish Group
Coverage Option.--Subsection (g) of section 35 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
``(9) Requirement to establish group coverage option.--
``(A) In general.--If any State has not elected to have
treated as qualified health insurance under this section at
least--
``(i) the coverage described in subparagraph (C), (D), (E),
or (F)(i) of subsection (e)(1), or
``(ii) only if the coverage is under a group health plan
and the plan satisfies the applicable requirements of section
9802, the coverage described in subparagraph (F)(ii),
(F)(iii), (F)(iv), (G), or (H) of subsection (e)(1),

the State, not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, shall develop in consultation
with representatives of eligible individuals and their
qualifying family members, coverage options that are to be
treated as qualified health insurance under this section and
that include at least one of the coverage options described
in clause (i) or (ii).
``(B) OPM.--In the case of any State that fails to satisfy
the requirement of subparagraph (A), the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management is authorized to establish
group health plan options, including low cost options, for
eligible individuals and qualifying family members of such
individuals in the State that shall be treated as qualified
health insurance under this section.''.
(e) Technical Amendment.--Effective as if included in the
enactment of the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-210; 116
Stat. 933), subsection (f) of section 203 of that Act is
repealed.

SEC. 1006. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT RELATING TO OPERATION OF STATE
HIGH RISK HEALTH INSURANCE POOLS.

Effective as if included in the enactment of the amendment
made by section 201(b) of the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-210; 116 Stat. 959), section 2745(d) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-45(d)) is amended by inserting
after ``2744(c)(2)'' the following: ``, except that with
respect to subparagraph (A) of such section a State may elect
to provide for the enrollment of eligible individuals through
an acceptable alternative mechanism,''.

SEC. 1007. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.

Section 7527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to advance payment of credit for health insurance costs of
eligible individuals), as amended by section 1001, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Inclusion of Certain Information.--The notice by the
Secretary (or by any person or entity designated by the
Secretary) that an individual is eligible for a qualified
health insurance costs credit eligibility certificate shall
include--
``(1) the name, address, and telephone number of the State
office or offices responsible for determining that the
individual is eligible for such certificate and for providing
the individual with assistance with enrollment in qualified
health insurance (as defined in section 35(e));
``(2) a list of the coverage options, including the low
cost options, that are treated as qualified health insurance
(as so defined) by the State in which the individual resides;
and
``(3) in the case of a TAA-eligible individual (as defined
in section 4980B(f)(5)(C)(iv)(II)), a statement informing the
individual that the individual has 63 days from the date that
is 5 days after the postmark date of such notice to enroll in
such insurance without a lapse in creditable coverage (as
defined in section 9801(c)).''.

SEC. 1008. ANNUAL REPORT ON ENHANCED TAA BENEFITS.

Not later than October 1 of each year (beginning in 2004)
the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the
Secretary of Labor, shall report to the Committee on Finance
and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means and the
Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives the following information with respect to the
most recent taxable year ending before such date:
(1) The total number of participants utilizing the health
insurance tax credit under section 35 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, including a measurement of such participants
identified--
(A) by State, and
(B) by coverage under COBRA continuation provisions (as
defined in section 9832(d)(1) of such Code) and by non-COBRA
coverage (further identified by group and individual market).
(2) The range of monthly health insurance premiums offered
and the average and median monthly health insurance premiums
offered to TAA-eligible individuals (as defined in section
4980B(f)(5)(C)(iv)(II) of such Code) under COBRA continuation
provisions (as defined in section 9832(d)(1) of such Code),
State-based continuation coverage provided under a State law
that requires such coverage, and each category of coverage
described in section 35(e)(1) of such Code, identified by
State and by the actuarial value of such coverage and the
specific benefits provided and cost-sharing imposed under
such coverage.
(3) The number of States applying for and receiving
national emergency grants under section 173(f) of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918(f)) and the
time necessary for application approval of such grants.
(4) The cost of administering the health credit program
under section 35 of such Code, by function, including the
cost of subcontractors.

TITLE XI--MORTGAGE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE

SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Homestead Preservation
Act''.

SEC. 1102. MORTGAGE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE.

(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary of Labor
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall
establish a program under which the Secretary shall award
low-interest loans to eligible individuals to enable such
individuals to continue to make mortgage payments with
respect to the primary residences of such individuals.
(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a loan under
the program established under subsection (a), an individual
shall--
(1) be--
(A) an adversely affected worker with respect to whom a
certification of eligibility has been issued by the Secretary
of Labor under chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.); or
(B) an individual who would be an individual described in
subparagraph (A) but who resides in a State that has not
entered into an agreement under section 239 of such Act (19
U.S.C. 2311);
(2) be a borrower under a loan which requires the
individual to make monthly mortgage payments with respect to
the primary place of residence of the individual; and
(3) be enrolled in a job training or job assistance
program.
(c) Loan Requirements.--
(1) In general.--A loan provided to an eligible individual
under this section shall--
(A) be for a period of not to exceed 12 months;
(B) be for an amount that does not exceed the sum of--
(i) the amount of the monthly mortgage payment owed by the
individual; and
(ii) the number of months for which the loan is provided;

[[Page S4812]]

(C) have an applicable rate of interest that equals 4
percent;
(D) require repayment as provided for in subsection (d);
and
(E) be subject to such other terms and conditions as the
Secretary determines appropriate.
(2) Account.--A loan awarded to an individual under this
section shall be deposited into an account from which a
monthly mortgage payment will be made in accordance with the
terms and conditions of such loan.
(d) Repayment.--
(1) In general.--An individual to which a loan has been
awarded under this section shall be required to begin making
repayments on the loan on the earlier of--
(A) the date on which the individual has been employed on a
full-time basis for 6 consecutive months; or
(B) the date that is 1 year after the date on which the
loan has been approved under this section.
(2) Repayment period and amount.--
(A) Repayment period.--A loan awarded under this section
shall be repaid on a monthly basis over the 5-year period
beginning on the date determined under paragraph (1).
(B) Amount.--The amount of the monthly payment described in
subparagraph (A) shall be determined by dividing the total
amount provided under the loan (plus interest) by 60.
(C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall
be construed to prohibit an individual from--
(i) paying off a loan awarded under this section in less
than 5 years; or
(ii) from paying a monthly amount under such loan in excess
of the monthly amount determined under subparagraph (B) with
respect to the loan.
(e) Regulations.--Not later than 6 weeks after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate
regulations necessary to carry out this section, including
regulations that permit an individual to certify that the
individual is an eligible individual under subsection (b).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $10,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008.

TITLE XII--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 1201. DEFINITION OF VALID TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
FOR EARNED INCOME CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Section 32(m) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(m) Identification Numbers.--Solely for purposes of
subsections (c)(1)(F) and (c)(3)(D), a taxpayer
identification number means a social security number assigned
by the Social Security Administration--
``(1) to a citizen of the United States, or
``(2) to an individual pursuant to subclause (I) (or that
portion of subclause (III) that relates to subclause (I)) of
section 205(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Cantwell is here. If I can have the
attention of the two managers of the bill, all she is going to do is
offer her amendment. It is not going to change where she is. She is
following Allen, anyway. Can she offer her amendment now? It is only
going to be reported by number, and then she can leave.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, according to the agreement, I think that
will be good. That is fine.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Amendment No. 3114

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator
Voinovich, I call up our amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell], for herself and
Mr. Voinovich, proposes an amendment numbered 3114.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation
Act of 2002, and for other purposes)

At the end, add the following:

TITLE __--UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

SEC. __01. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION ACT OF 2002.

(a) In General.--Section 208 of the Temporary Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147;
116 Stat. 30), as amended by Public Law 108-1 (117 Stat. 3)
and the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 2003 (Public
Law 108-26; 117 Stat. 751), is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``December 31, 2003''
and inserting ``November 30, 2004'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``December 31, 2003''
and inserting ``November 30, 2004'';
(3) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``december 31, 2003'' and
inserting ``november 30, 2004''; and
(B) by striking ``December 31, 2003'' and inserting
``November 30, 2004''; and
(4) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``March 31, 2004''
and inserting ``February 28, 2005''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 21).

SEC. __02. ADDITIONAL REVISION TO CURRENT TEUC-X TRIGGER.

(a) In General.--Section 203(c)(2)(B) of the Temporary
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-147; 116 Stat. 30) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) such a period would then be in effect for such State
under such Act if--
``(i) section 203(d) of such Act were applied as if it had
been amended by striking `5' each place it appears and
inserting `4'; and
``(ii) with respect to weeks of unemployment beginning
after December 27, 2003--

``(I) paragraph (1)(A) of such section 203(d) did not
apply; and
``(II) clause (ii) of section 203(f)(1)(A) of such Act did
not apply.''.

(b) Application.--Section 203(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Temporary
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-147; 116 Stat. 30), as added by subsection (a), shall
apply with respect to payments for weeks of unemployment
beginning on or after the date of enactment this Act.

SEC. __03. TEMPORARY STATE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE APPLICATION OF
LOOKBACKS UNDER THE FEDERAL-STATE EXTENDED
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF 1970.

For purposes of conforming with the provisions of the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note), a State may, during the period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on
June 30, 2004, waive the application of either subsection
(d)(1)(A) of section 203 of such Act or subsection
(f)(1)(A)(ii) of such section, or both.

Amendment No. 3109, As Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the pending Wyden
amendment? The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to briefly outline this
bipartisan amendment. This is cosponsored by my colleague from
Minnesota, Senator Coleman. We are joined by Senator Snowe and Senator
Brownback, and on our side by the distinguished ranking member, Senator
Baucus, and Senator Rockefeller. There is a strong bipartisan coalition
for this amendment because the fact is under our trade adjustment laws,
millions of our workers have been left behind.
This law has been of great benefit to those in the manufacturing
sector for more than three decades, but for millions of our workers who
work in the service sector, who work, for example, in the high-
technology sector, the safety net the Trade Adjustment Act provides has
not been there. So all of the benefits offered by the trade adjustment
legislation in terms of help with retraining, assistance with health
care, a bit of income to get by--all of the services that make it
possible for one to use this critical law as a trampoline to get back
into the private sector economy have not been available in the service
sector and in the high-technology sector, and that is what our
bipartisan amendment would change.
In the last few hours apparently there has been one letter from an
insurance company that has been offered up as an argument against this.
It states that in some way our legislation would damage the opportunity
for private insurance companies to deliver health benefits under this
legislation. Senator Coleman and I would never support something like
that, and I wish to outline exactly why our amendment does not damage
the opportunity for private insurance companies to deliver health care
under our proposal.
Our amendment states that all current private sector health care
delivery systems would be continued in every State in America. So let
me start with that.
Under our bipartisan amendment, in every State in America the private
sector options that are offered now could be continued.
We do state in our proposal that if there is discrimination, say, on
the basis of genetic history or disability or other concrete examples
of discrimination, then the Office of Personnel Management would be
given the discretion--not required but they would be

[[Page S4813]]

given the discretion--to step in and ensure that there is an affordable
alternative.
Second, we protect the option of private health insurers
participating in the system by stipulating that our amendment will not
override State decisionmaking. This is very important because, again,
in every State in our country, State insurance law allows for private
insurers to be involved in the health care delivery system.
Third, apparently there was a concern raised that in some way this
amendment would encourage adverse selection and then there would be a
disproportionate number of those who are needy and ailing going to
private insurers.
The fact is that the bipartisan amendment will reduce adverse
selection. It will reduce adverse selection by increasing the subsidy
that is available for health care in America. It will expand outreach,
which will be beneficial, and make it easier for people to sign up. So
the prospect that this will encourage adverse selection and damage
private insurers is also incorrect.
So I want to be clear because there was one letter that was brought
up recently in the last few hours opposing all of the good bipartisan
work that has been done on this for months and months, and I wanted to
set the record clear that for the three reasons I have outlined our
bipartisan legislation will do no damage to the important private
sector health delivery options that are available now in every State in
America and will be continued under our legislation.
I believe I will have a bit more time later. I think Senator Coleman
did an incredibly good job yesterday of outlining the case for why it
is so important to help these workers. I know in my home State, folks
do not understand why if one is hurting in Beaverton, OR, or they have
lost their job as a result of trade they cannot be in a position to
compete against somebody in Bangalore. That is what this issue is all
about.
I see our friend, the distinguished chairman of the Finance
Committee, is in the Chamber. He has done such good work over the years
with respect to the training and other programs that are essential.
With this legislation that has been produced by a bipartisan group,
including Senators Coleman, Brownback, Snowe, Rockefeller, and Baucus,
we are giving a chance to that great bulk of workers in the service
sector and in the high-technology sector to have a chance to use this
program as a trampoline to get back into the economy. They are not
going to get that chance under other programs. There is no other
program that gives that same kind of opportunity to folks who are
hurting in this way. We have done it in a bipartisan way. We have done
it in a cost-effective way. We have done it in a fashion so as to not
damage the right of private health insurers in every State in the
country to deliver the benefit.
I will have a bit more to say as we get into the debate, but I also
conclude this portion by thanking my colleague, the distinguished
Senator from Minnesota. He has been a great champion of a bipartisan
effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WYDEN. I yield time to the Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his
efforts in working in a bipartisan way and simply trying to do the
right thing.
I happen to be a very strong supporter of trade. I understand that if
one does not trade, they do not grow and the economy does not grow. In
the end, I have always believed the best thing we can do as public
officials, moms and dads, is give people the opportunity to work. Trade
has been an opportunity for jobs. Trade has created those
opportunities.
Along the way, there have been some casualties. Along the way, due to
policy choices we have made, not because of lack of productivity, not
because of inefficiency but because of policy decisions regarding
trade, workers have had jobs impacted.
A couple of years ago, in 2002, my colleagues did a review and
relooked at this whole issue of trade adjustment assistance, something
that has been around since the times of John Kennedy, and said we
should strengthen this. In doing so, one of the things that was done is
it focused simply on the production of goods on manufacturing. Now,
when I talk to many of my colleagues and say if someone is providing a
service, if they are driving a truck to a facility that is no longer to
be manufacturing lawnmowers, then they are not eligible for trade
adjustment assistance, they are not eligible for retooling, for
retraining, for health insurance, for tax credits. If one is providing
the janitorial service for the lawnmower production facility, they are
not eligible for the kind of assistance that would allow them to train
for a job so they can be back in the workforce and taking care of their
family.
As my colleague from Oregon has indicated, in the course of the last
few hours we received one letter from one insurance company raising
some concerns. Again, I am not going to repeat what my colleague has
said, except to reiterate we are not changing the opportunity that
exists now in any State. It is still there. There is a provision which
provides discretion for OPM, a Federal agency, to come in under limited
circumstances. They probably do not want to come in, but again this is
not the wholesale change that some have talked about.
There were two other issues that came up today that I want to make
very clear what the facts are to my colleagues. No. 1, there has been
discussion about retroactivity. It has been mentioned along the way
that we are going to provide retroactivity for 10 years or 12 years.
No. TAA was established--if we go back, I believe it was 2 years in two
limited circumstances, service workers being the principal one, but it
is not 12 years of retroactivity.
Then the other issue that has been raised that I want to make very
clear is we are only talking about providing TAA, trade adjustment
assistance, to folks who lose their jobs because of trade. This is not
open-ended, that if one loses their job all of a sudden they are going
to be eligible for all sorts of Federal benefits. That is not the case.
Under current law, if one loses their job and it is with countries
that have a trade agreement with the United States, Canada and Mexico,
then one is eligible. Under this improvement, this modification, if one
loses their job because of trade with China or India, they are now
eligible, as it should be. That is Minnesota common sense; that is
American common sense; but it is not an open-ended expansion of a
Federal program. It is specifically focused on job loss that is related
to trade, and I think that is important.
If my colleagues believe in trade, they should support this because
what this does is it allows those of us who believe in trade to say
that workers who are harmed are going to have some opportunities for
health insurance by way of a tax credit. They are going to have an
opportunity for wage insurance which will get them back into the
marketplace quicker, get them back to being more productive, get them
back to taking care of their families. That is the right thing to do.
Regardless of one's position on trade, the bottom line is we all
should agree that those who are negatively impacted should have access
to the opportunity to be retrained and reschooled and get back into the
workplace, to be able to take care of their family, and it should not
depend on whether one is manufacturing a lawnmower or whether one is
providing a service, a call center, whether one is involved in a
software firm. The nature of the job should not be the difference. What
is important here, common sense and I think consistency would say, if
job loss is due to trade, we are going to make these opportunities
available.

We have identified an area in the budget which would offset the cost.
It has to do with the earned-income tax credit and the way that is
applied. There is, I believe, $5.7 billion we have identified. By
correcting and dealing with this issue of earned-income tax credit, who
is eligible, we should more than offset the opportunity we are creating
here for folks who are involved in service kinds of jobs to get the
kind of coverage that would allow them to take care of their families,
get back into the workplace, be productive, and help move this economy
forward.

[[Page S4814]]

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge them not to be
swayed at the last minute by some arguments that, if you look at them
carefully, simply do not hold up to the light of day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much additional time, if any, do I
have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent for up to 5 additional minutes. I
ask that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator
Grassley, would also have that additional time if my unanimous consent
request was agreed to. We have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. I ask that I
have up to 5 additional minutes and that the distinguished chairman of
the Finance Committee would also have up to 5 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to alert me after I have
used up 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will notify the Senator.
Mr. GRASSLEY. First of all, I hope the proponents of this amendment
know that as a conferee 2 years ago when health benefits were added to
trade adjustment assistance, I was a conferee and I worked to make sure
these health benefits were included. We have a program before us
adopted 2 years ago but operational for about no more than 9 months.
Now what we are doing is we are being asked to make a dramatic
expansion of these programs with only 9 months' experience.
It seems to me to be a little bit early to be making these sorts of
changes in a program that was a fundamental change in trade adjustment
assistance 2 years ago. But of course it was a reasonable change to
make because we are always trying to find ways to help people who
previously had health insurance, who are unemployed through no fault of
their own. We did that through the trade adjustment assistance
expansion before.
I would like to respond to the first point made by the Senator from
Oregon, and that is about the letter from BlueCross BlueShield
Association that they have sent to all Members of the Senate voicing
their concerns about this very dramatic expansion. I want to make it
clear that it is legitimate for them to raise their concerns because it
is their members, the Blues, who have stepped up to the plate to serve
those eligible for the credit. They are the ones out there serving the
public the way Congress intended. So if they have some concerns that
they are just 9 months into a program and having a very dramatic change
in the program, yes, wouldn't you expect them to voice some concerns?
In addition, though, to the BlueCross BlueShield Association, I have
had expressed to me--not in letter form, but I hope my colleagues will
take this into consideration in voting--I have had expressed concerns
about this amendment from the America's Health Insurance Plans and the
National Association of Health Underwriters as well.
I have to say I reluctantly oppose this amendment. I was hoping we
would be able to work out further bipartisan agreement behind this
amendment than what has come out. While I am not opposed in general to
making some service workers eligible for trade adjustment assistance
and to making improvements to the Trade Act health tax credit, this
amendment goes too far too soon. I had hoped we could reach a more
bipartisan compromise on TAA for service workers, and I am extremely
disappointed that we could not do that.
This amendment started out with a few pages as a simple and
straightforward idea to extend trade adjustment assistance to low-
skilled service workers who might be displaced by trade. The original
bill, S. 2157, reflected that idea. That idea appealed to me, I say to
the Senator from Oregon, and it is certainly something that merits
serious consideration today. Yet at some point that idea mutated to
something much more than adding service workers to the existing trade
adjustment assistance plus the health benefits expansion we adopted 2
years ago.
The original Baucus bill, S. 2157, was 10 pages long. In short, by
just the number of pages, it was a limited approach but good in
substance. This amendment, which purports to do the same thing as the
Baucus bill, is, in fact, 57 pages long. Clearly it does not require 57
pages of legislation to extend trade adjustment assistance to service
workers. So what happened? How did 10 pages grow to 57 pages? The
answer is quite simple. In the guise of extending trade adjustment
assistance to service workers, the amendment makes numerous and
fundamental changes to the current Trade Adjustment Assistance Program.
These changes go so far that I feel the very fabric of trade adjustment
assistance for workers is at risk.

I will put the changes in context. Just 2 years ago Senator Baucus
and I worked together in a bipartisan way to expand and reform trade
adjustment assistance. We accomplished this through the Trade Act of
2002. In doing so, we nearly doubled the program and took the
unprecedented step of extending trade adjustment assistance to a whole
new class of workers called secondary workers. Secondary workers are
those whose job loss might not be directly related to imports, so it
was a major expansion.
We also made a number of other changes to the program, including
consolidating trade adjustment assistance programs, increasing the
funding cap for training, increasing the job search allowance,
establishing a new unprecedented wage insurance program for older
workers, and establishing a new Federal health subsidy, a health tax
credit to help dislocated workers and pension recipients get health
coverage.
Now, with these new programs barely up and running, some of them just
9 months, supporters of this amendment want to stretch trade adjustment
assistance even further, expanding the program to a whole new loosely
defined class of service workers and changing the tax credit in various
ways. I am afraid that trade adjustment assistance for workers is being
stretched to the breaking point.
The definitions being proposed could provide 2 years of income
support, health and training benefits to service professionals,
including attorneys, accountants, engineers, as well as business
consultants and advertising agents.
Allowing upper-class highly skilled professionals access to trade
adjustment assistance does not make sense. In fact, this could actually
hurt the program by seriously slowing the provisions of assisting
services and benefits for lower skilled manufacturing workers who truly
need skills training under trade adjustment assistance.
Can you visualize a lawyer or an accountant with their job loss
associated to trade adjustment assistance going back and learning some
new skill after they have been through law school? I don't think so.
But perhaps what is even more troubling is the number of fundamental
and permanent changes that are being made to trade adjustment
assistance in the guise of extending the program to service workers.
I would like to give you some examples. The amendment expands the
definition of downstream products to include testing as well as
finishing operations. The amendment creates a special eligibility rule
for producers of taconite pellets. It includes a special retroactive
rule for producers of taconite pellets to November 4, 2002. It doubles
the authorization for training benefits to $440 million annually. It
lowers the age for workers eligible to participate in the Wage
Insurance Program, basically a wage subsidy for older workers, from 50
years and older, to 40 years and older.
Let's look at that. Originally, we wanted to help people who were
maybe too old to get some job retraining to move into another industry.
Generally, that is 50 years and up. But are you going to offer this
wage insurance to people who are 40 years old and have 25 more years to
work where the benefit of job retraining is a worthwhile investment?
This amendment does that.
It establishes a whole new trade adjustment assistance program for
communities. It completely reorganizes the trade adjustment assistance
for firms by establishing an Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance
within the Department of Commerce. It adds a new class

[[Page S4815]]

of firms--service firms--eligible for benefits under the program. It
further relaxes current eligibility criteria for manufacturing workers
deemed eligible for trade adjustment assistance. It requires the
Secretary of Labor to establish a new performance measuring system as
well as a number of other new data collection projects.
The program may be pushed to the breaking point.
That is the third time I have said it.
We have a program that was expanded 2 years ago getting underway 9
months ago. Here we are doing all these things I just mentioned, and
doing it on a bill that is meant to create jobs in industry. We are
holding up a bill that should have been passed 3 months ago to get jobs
in manufacturing.
If this weren't enough, the amendment would change the health tax
credit.
Again, because that program is young, the advanceable credit has only
been running for 9 months. We do not know what issues may need to be
addressed or the best ways to address them.
When is it going to reach the point around here when we pass a law in
one Congress, it is in operation one day, and we start changing it?
When is enough enough? Or when, at least, is enough enough for a while?
Yet here we have an amendment that claims to have some sort of
definitive solutions.

Changing the rules in a piecemeal fashion, especially now in the
early stages, will be unsettling for those at the Federal and State
levels who, along with private insurers, are working diligently to get
their tax credit off the ground.
By accepting this amendment, we would be sending them a loud and
clear message: Thanks for all your hard work, but we are going to
change the ground rules. By the way, do not be surprised if we come
back tomorrow and tell you later that because we have better, more
complete information, these changes being made and suggested today
aren't somehow the right changes. So we are going to give you more.
That information will be coming in the very near term.
The General Accounting Office will issue a report in early fall on
the health tax credit. I plan to hold a hearing in the Finance
Committee to discuss the General Accounting Office's findings and
recommendations. Treasury also has survey work underway. It will be
important for us to judge the progress of this new program that was
adopted just 2 years ago and which has been in effect for 9 months.
These reports--when we get them--will better inform efforts to
improve the health tax credit at the right time with some information
that is worthwhile so we can make a judgment that we will use the
taxpayers' money wisely.
Now is not the time. This amendment will destabilize the Trade Act
tax credit and undermine the availability of affordable coverage
choices for people eligible for that credit--the exact opposite outcome
that anyone would want.
A number of Blue Cross-Blue Shield association members cover those
who receive the credit. They wrote:

This represents a major and problematic change in a program
that has been operational for less than one year.

They go on to say:

Many Blue Plans would be forced to reconsider offering
their products if this amendment passed placing at risk the
coverage of many TAA eligibles.

Some would say that is a threat coming from somebody who is just
looking out for Members in this body who oppose your amendment. But you
ought to give some consideration, it seems to me, to people who are
offering a service. When we passed this bill 2 years ago, we didn't
know we would be prepared to do it, but people have stepped up to the
plate.
Let us be clear about what is at stake. If we weaken the
effectiveness of the Trade Adjustment Program for manufacturing
workers, public support for that program will be lost and truly trade-
impacted workers may be hurt.
If we expand the Trade Adjustment Program and change the health tax
credit in a less than a thoughtful and deliberate manner, we could
jeopardize programs for current beneficiaries.
We should make sure proposals to further expand trade adjustment
assistance and to change the health tax credit are done in a fiscally
prudent way and that any changes made will work in practice. In other
words, approach this the same way that Senator Baucus and I did 2 years
ago when we got into the program.
What we have in this amendment is a bunch of ideas with no coherent
direction except being bigger and bigger, more and more, and higher and
higher.
Such an approach surely is good politics, but it certainly can result
in bad policy. I figure that good policy is the best politics. I am
afraid that is what we have in this amendment--bad policy.
The price tag for all of these special rules, retroactively, and new
benefits, comes to about a $5.3 billion price tag. Where I come from
that is a lot of money. I think we have an obligation to make sure it
is spent wisely.
While well-intentioned, this amendment goes too far. It could weaken
the current program, and it could put the recently enacted health tax
credit at risk.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much additional time do I have
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.
Mr. WYDEN. I yield 2 minutes at this time to Senator Coleman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, my colleague, the distinguished chairman
of the Finance Committee, shares the same objective; that is, strong
adjustment assistance.
I maintain that what we are trying to do in this amendment is to
simply strengthen what we have seen over 2 years has not been working.
That is what is going on here.
Fewer than 5 percent of eligible TAA workers are using the existing
tax credit. That is not what we intended. I don't believe my colleagues
intended that when it was originally passed. When this was originally
passed, we focused on manufacturing jobs. We have all come to
understand that about 80 percent of the jobs today in America are
service jobs.
We are simply looking at something with which we had experience over
2 years, identifying those things that are not working, those things
where folks are not taking advantage of the opportunities which were
our intent to provide, and giving them that opportunity in a way which
will work.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. I have enormous respect for the distinguished chairman of
the Finance Committee. I will take a minute or two to touch on the
issue being raised.
The distinguished chairman of the committee has repeatedly said: The
program would be stretched too far; the program is already at its
limits; when would enough be enough?
I say to my distinguished friend, when we are only covering 5 percent
of the people eligible for the health care benefit, we have to do
better. By any calculation, that is not something that reflects well on
our bipartisan desires.
The chairman of the committee knows I have been supportive of these
trade agreements the Senator from Iowa and the distinguished Senator
from Montana have championed. They have opened up the opportunity for
U.S. companies to set up shops overseas and generate jobs and
investment.
Senator Coleman and I want to open up the trade adjustment program so
when our U.S. workers are hurt, they are not left behind. Senator
Coleman and I have said this is a question of bringing the law in line
with the times. It made sense more than three decades ago when it
focused on manufacturing.
The chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Iowa,
has hit the key question: When is enough enough? We believe, on a
bipartisan basis, it is not enough when you are covering only 5 percent
of the workers for health care and you are leaving four-fifths of the
economy, people in the service sector and the high-technology sector,
behind.

[[Page S4816]]

There is a reason why business and labor have come together to
support our amendment. This amendment is supported by the Business
Roundtable. It is supported by the Technology Industry Association. The
two key business groups, the Business Roundtable, the Technology
Industry Association, and the labor sector, have come together because
they have seen a bipartisan effort that has gone on for months, led by
the distinguished Senator from Montana and the Senator from Minnesota,
to bring the Senate together.
If Members vote against this amendment, I believe it is a vote that
will continue discrimination under law against those who work in the
high-technology and service sector. It will keep the door closed to
millions of our workers in the technology and service sector. I know no
Senator intends that, but that will be the practical effect.
We will have only one vote in this session of the Senate as to
whether we will have a chance to stand up for these workers who have
been hammered as a result of unfair trading practices or simply
competition, when we pay $40 or $50 an hour and competitors overseas
pay vastly less.
I am very hopeful the bipartisan efforts that have been made will not
be in vain. The distinguished Senator from Iowa has put his hand on the
key question: When is enough enough? We respectfully say, if we are
only covering 5 percent of the workers and leaving four-fifths of the
economy behind and the support of the Business Roundtable and the
Technology Industry Association, it is not enough. We can do better.

The distinguished Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the committee,
and the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Baucus, know I
have been very supportive of their policies in the past and expect to
be in the future, particularly with respect to these trade agreements.
When the trade agreements open up the opportunities for our companies,
we have to open up the opportunity for the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Program to help our workers when they have been left behind.
This will be the one chance to stand up for millions of workers in
the high-tech and service sector. I hope our colleagues will support
this bipartisan amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 30 seconds, one to correct and one for
thoughtful reaction.
The thoughtful reaction is this: When a new program has been in
effect for only 9 months, is it unusual that only 5 percent of the
people would take part in it? No, they are learning about it. They are
going to get involved over a period of time. Only 5 percent in 9
months.
Second, as to the Business Roundtable supporting this amendment, I
know the Business Roundtable has called some of the offices of various
sponsors of this bill to tell them to quit saying the Business
Roundtable supports this amendment.
I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma whatever time he may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa for his
statement. I hope our colleagues paid attention to it.
I see my friend from Oregon. Before I make my statement, I have a
question because I am trying to determine who is eligible. How many
weeks does a worker have to work in a service industry before he would
be eligible for this trade adjustment assistance?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to asking a question?
Mr. NICKLES. I am asking a question.
Mr. WYDEN. Same as current law.
Mr. NICKLES. That is how many weeks?
I reclaim my time. If my colleague from Oregon finds an answer to
that, I appreciate hearing it. I have asked our staff the answer to
that question and it came back that a person only had to work 26 weeks
of the previous 52 to qualify for the benefit.
Mr. WYDEN. That is current law.
Mr. NICKLES. I wanted to make sure. We are saying if you work in
service, manufacturing, we will give you trade adjustment assistance.
What is the benefit? The benefit is equal to 2 years of unemployment
compensation. For what? A person worked 26 weeks--one half of a year--
and now under this proposal, we are expanding it.
It was too generous in the first place. We are expanding it to say a
person is entitled to receive very generous benefits, benefits equal to
2 years of unemployment compensation, 26 weeks by the State, and a year
and a half under the Federal program, all federally paid unemployment
compensation. That is more generous. All other States have 26 weeks.

We have debated that back and forth, but now we are saying for this
group of employees, you get 2 years, mostly paid for by the Federal
Government. That is too generous.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NICKLES. No, I want to make a few comments. Then I will be happy
to engage in a dialog.
What is the cost of this proposal? I have heard somebody say it is
paid for. It is not, according to the scoring rules we use in the
Senate. The cost of it--and we got a copy of this from the
Congressional Budget Office. The total budget authority over 10 years
is $5.3 billion; estimated outlay is $5 billion, and a revenue
decrease, because of the insurance tax credit, of $669 million. So it
is a total cost of 7.6 billion over 10 years.
Now let's look at a couple of other provisions in the bill. This bill
says we will take the present program and expand it. We will give
basically refundable tax credits for insurance. The present program
says the Federal Government will pay 65 percent of it, two-thirds. This
bill says we will replace that and have the Federal Government pay 75
percent. That is three-fourths, if you are not real quick in math. And
there is no limit on the cost.
So a person in high tech, as I heard my colleague say, could maybe
have a very generous health care plan, maybe it costs $10,000 a year
and the Federal Government will pay $7,500 because there is not a limit
in the cost.
Wow. This thing is just growing. And maybe some people get some
support from this union or that union, and it sounds good. But you
start looking at it and you say: What are we doing? It purports to make
some changes in the earned-income tax program. I am happy to make
changes in the earned-income tax program, but I don't think this gets
it done.
Basically what I see this doing is expanding an entitlement, saying,
if you happen to be unemployed, either through manufacturing or through
service workers, and somebody can say it is because those jobs went
overseas--and that is somewhat discretionary in the assessment of it--
the Federal Government is going to pick up three-fourths of your health
care cost for the next 2 years and you are entitled to 2 years of
unemployment compensation.
Unemployment compensation for most States averages about $260, $280,
maybe $300 a week. In some States it is up to $700 a week. Again, there
is no limit. If you are looking at $700 a week, you are talking about
real money. You do that for 104 weeks, that is a pretty generous
benefit paid by the Federal Government.
Guess what, folks. We have a little deficit problem around here. This
is going to add to it. In fact, this would add to it to the tune of
about $7 or $8 billion--$7.3 billion, I believe. At the appropriate
time, I am going to make a budget point of order.
Let me give a little facts on trade adjustment assistance. Again, for
all of our fiscal conservatives who say we need to get a handle on
Federal spending, trade adjustment assistance cost $350 million in the
year 2001. The year 2004, it cost $800 million. If we do this
expansion, it is going to grow dramatically.
There are lots of reasons to vote against this proposal. I urge my
colleagues at the appropriate time to vote against it, and at the
appropriate time I will be making a budget point of order.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. NICKLES. First, I yield to my colleague from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will let the Senator from Montana ask a
question, and then I have a minute.
Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls 10 additional minutes.

[[Page S4817]]

The Senator from Oregon controls 1 minute.
Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Montana for a
question.
Mr. BAUCUS. Isn't it true that under this basic law and also this
amendment, benefits only accrue prospectively; that is, no benefits
accrue retroactively? That is, the only retroactive application is as
to whether somebody qualifies, but the actual benefits only accrue
prospectively. So it is not accurate to say there is a lump sum that is
paid to a worker because of past employment.
Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct. I believe you do provide trade
adjustment assistance to workers in companies where it is 20 percent
and you are looking backward to see whether they qualify.
Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct. But, again, the payments--that is, the
trade adjustment assistance payments--would only be prospective.
Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.
Mr. BAUCUS. That is for persons, after today, for example, talking
about service employees, who are out of a job on account of trade.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I agree.
Mr. BAUCUS. So it is true there is no lump sum payment.
Mr. NICKLES. I didn't say there was a lump sum. I said the facts are
the benefits under this Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, which was
an amendment that was added to the fast-track promotion bill to maybe
encourage some people to vote for it, in my opinion, is fatally flawed.
Because it has a tax credit where the Federal Government is going to
pay two-thirds of the health care costs, 65 percent of the health care
cost if somebody is in this category. You only have to work 26 weeks
out of the previous year and yet you can get your health care benefits
paid for under current law 65 percent by the Federal Government. This
makes it three-fourths paid for by the Federal Government. That is a
serious mistake. It benefits, frankly, those plans and those companies
that have very high health care costs. In some cases that would be
union plans that maybe overpromised, and they have very expensive
plans.
It also would benefit those people who say: Wait a minute. I lost my
job. I lost my job because now that job is being done in India. Maybe
somebody is a programmer or maybe somebody is a computer programmer or
maybe they are a telephone solicitor and now maybe that job is being
done some in the States and some overseas. But the company had a tough
time. Maybe it is a telecommunications company and they reduced their
employment. But there happens to be some employment overseas. You could
see a whole lot of people saying: My job was lost because it went to
India, because it went to China. Therefore, even though I have only
worked there for 26 weeks out of the last year, pay for my health care
for the next 2 years, Uncle Sam. And yes, I want unemployment
compensation for the next 2 years. Thank you very much. And
incidentally, I want cash. Give me $5,000 cash for the next 2 years.
That is all in this system. It expands it greatly. That is the reason
why the Congressional Budget Office says over the next 10 years it is
going to cost $6 billion. At the appropriate time, I will be making a
budget point of order that it is not paid for. I am going to make a
pay-go point of order.
For the information of my colleagues who are very confused on budget
points of order, I have used committee allocation points of order. I
could use that on this one, or I could use pay-go. Most of the time I
have used committee allocation. I may start using pay-go so people
become more familiar with it.
I understand people are in favor of pay-go. I would like for them to
become more familiar with that particular budget point of order. We
will be making it.
This amendment also increases the wage assistance that Senator
Grassley mentioned, which is supposed to be for older workers who might
have a hard time being retrained, down to 40 years. So all they have to
do is work for 26 weeks and then we are going to give them wage
assistance, wage insurance.
How socialistic do you have to get? People come to this floor and
say, I believe in the free enterprise system, but if you have a change
in jobs, we want the Federal Government to come in and give you your
wage difference. We want to make up the difference. Oh, we are going to
take care of your health care for the next 2 years. Yes, we are going
to give you unemployment compensation for 2 years. Everybody else in
the country has 26 weeks. But since you have determined maybe yours is
because of overseas competition, we are going to give you 2 years. I
don't think it is affordable. I don't think it makes sense. I think it
was crafted in a way to maybe buy votes.

I look at these 57 pages and I am saying: Why don't we just call this
an entitlement expansion? Let's expand all these programs. Let's tax
and spend. How are we going to pay for it? It says we will do something
with the earned-income tax credit. We will get those undocumented
workers.
Joint Tax says that doesn't count. Joint Tax says that is a
technicality, and so you don't get scoring for that. And we use Joint
Tax around here.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, to respond very briefly, we pay for it as
essentially outlined in the President's budget. According to OMB and
the Treasury Department, we would close the loophole that would save
taxpayers approximately $5.7 trillion over 10 years. That is the way we
pay for the program. The people who are going to be eligible for the
program are going to get the same opportunities as those in the
manufacturing sector, the same number of weeks.
The Senator from Oklahoma has talked about unemployment compensation.
This is about retraining people. This is about health care benefits.
If you think we are doing enough today when 5 percent of the people
get access to the health care program, then I guess that is a rationale
for voting against this amendment. I would hope the bipartisan work
that has been done on this legislation by myself, Senator Coleman,
Senator Brownback, Senator Snowe, and Senator Baucus would warrant the
support of our colleagues.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I speak in strong support of the trade
adjustment assistance amendment to the JOBS Act. I will keep my
comments short and to the point.
Although there continues to be a significant debate in Congress
concerning the efficacy of the administration's economic policies, I
believe the majority of my colleagues agree on one thing: training for
American workers in critical technologies remains the key to our
economic security.
It is undeniable that the process of globalization has created
dramatic shifts in the job opportunities available for American
workers.
It is unwise to assume the labor market will adjust by itself. I
firmly believe that Congress must look carefully at where we are going
and what we should be doing to remain competitive in the future.
Two years ago the Senate passed an expanded Trade Adjustment
Assistance Program as part of the Trade Act of 2002. I introduced that
trade adjustment assistance legislation with Senators Baucus, Daschle,
Rockefeller, and a number of other colleagues as original co-sponsors.
Included in that legislation were a range of provisions that we
considered to be essential to any effective TAA system--TAA for service
workers, TAA for shifts in production to all countries, TAA for
communities, TAA data collection, wage insurance, significant health
care coverage for workers, and so on.
Unfortunately, all of these provisions were either outright deleted
or seriously narrowed when the legislation went to conference.
The amendment today remedies that mistake. It recognizes that the
United States does face an immediate problem related to negative
impacts from trade and we need to better prepare workers for the
future. Significantly, it recognizes that long-term trade policies have
short-term costs for Americans and puts in place a coherent strategy to
give them the skills required for job security.
I have said this before and I say it again because it matters:
Contrary to the assertions of some of my colleagues, we cannot measure
the success of our trade policy only by the cost of

[[Page S4818]]

the products we buy. We also have to look at whether our workers are
more economically secure.
By this I mean whether they have a high-wage job, whether they can
buy a home, whether they can afford an education for their children,
whether they can afford health insurance, and whether they have
retirement security. Without these things, we are poor by any measure.
I have always argued that while strong trade agreements lie at the
core of a coherent trade strategy, an effective TAA program is
essential for our country. It is a fair and appropriate approach for
those American workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade.
American workers are not looking for handouts. They are looking for a
step-up to something better. They are looking for a chance to provide
for their families and contribute to our country's economic welfare.
This amendment offers them a chance to do just that. It is common
sense, and it is the least we can do for our neighbors and friends back
home.
It is time to do what has to be done to get this legislation passed.
There is too much at stake for American workers and communities to wait
any longer.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues,
Senators Wyden, Coleman, Baucus, Brownback, and Rockefeller to offer an
amendment in recognition of the critical need to provide economic
development assistance to Americans across this nation that have been
negatively impacted by trade. Trade Adjustment Assistance--TAA--
programs are essential in bringing short-term financial and retraining
assistance to workers who have been displaced due to imports or shifts
in production. I have long supported the TAA program as it has helped
those in Maine and across the Nation who are unemployed because of
trade to find new employment and gain the appropriate skills these new
jobs require, and this amendment builds upon this crucial program.
What we have before us is an amendment which recognizes that our
desire to trade should be balanced with our ability to assist those
adversely affected by trade. Our amendment is a comprehensive package
of TAA improvements and additions that further seeks to better the
conditions for America's workers and communities who find themselves
negatively impacted in the wake of rapid international trade
liberalization.
Our amendment contains provisions to assist trade-impacted
communities similar to those included in my bill, The Trade for
America's Communities Act, which I introduced last year. My legislation
gives the Department of Commerce the authority to use the revenue
collected from tariffs--which currently goes to corporations--to
provide technical assistance to communities that have been negatively
impacted by trade. The bill--and portions of this amendment--helps
communities to develop strategic plans that would focus on the creation
and retention of jobs and to promote economic diversification.
Our amendment also makes critical TAA changes in relation to the
service sector. We need to recognize that trade affects not just
manufacturing sectors of the economy, but service industries as well.
Current TAA provisions cover manufacturing workers but exclude the 80
percent of American non-farm jobs in the service sector. Our amendment
makes existing TAA benefits available to service workers whose jobs
move overseas and increases training funds to match anticipated
enrollment. This provision is sorely needed in places like Lewiston,
ME, where 84 service sector layoffs occurred at the ICT call center, or
30 workers at Prexar in Bangor, ME--all service sector workers.
When you start adding these types of layoffs to that of production in
small towns across the country, the impact is sizable, making the
distinction between service and production workers irrelevant. These
dynamic changes that are outgrowths of trade are similar to
technological advances in productivity that leave workers out of jobs,
or plants out of operation.
Beyond these provisions, the amendment also provides important
improvements to the refundable health care tax credit for laid-off
workers and retirees that was originally created in 2002 as part of the
Trade Promotion Authority Act.
Two years ago, I was proud to work closely as a member of the Finance
Committee with Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley to create the HCTC
as a means for displaced workers to continue receiving the health care
benefits they lost as a consequence of trade. I worked to bring this
benefit to fruition to help these displace workers get the health
coverage they need when faced with the loss of employment because the
assistance option at that time, namely COBRA, was too expensive to be
feasible. I will continue my efforts to see that it is properly
administered and adequately received by TAA-certified beneficiaries.
There have been countless situations prior to introducing the HCTC
where the workers were left without health care insurance, and this is
a situation that we have only begun to remedy by creating the HCTC.

Unfortunately, recent studies have demonstrated that the tax credit
has not been widely utilized by workers. Just last month, the U.S.
Department of Labor reported that only about 10 percent of workers
certified under the TAA program have applied for the health care tax
credit since its enactment. In fact, according to Blue-Cross/Blue-
Shield, only about 100 people in Maine are signed up for the HCTC.
In 2002, the original Senate version that I worked on called for a 75
percent HCTC benefit. Unfortunately this benefit was reduced to 65
percent in conference. That is why I am pleased that our amendment
today will restore this benefit to its originally proposed level. This
adjustment to the HCTC will allow more TAA-certified workers to take
advantage of the tax credit by making health care more affordable as
they seek new employment. As many of my colleagues would agree, TAA-
certified workers may still find it difficult to cover 25 percent of
the cost of premiums, but it is surely a step in the right direction to
making the HCTC more accessible.
This past February, I met with union members in my state who were
laid off as a result of the shutdown of the Eastern Pulp and Paper
mills in Lincoln and Brewer, ME, to talk about their needs. During the
meeting, I heard first hand that the 35 percent of the cost of the
health insurance premiums under the HCTC program is still too high when
most displaced workers are only receiving a maximum of $292.00 per week
in unemployment insurance--and premiums can be as high as $559.91 per
month for an individual and as high as $1,483.75 for a family. The
union officials also informed me that in the case of the Brewer, ME,
mill, of the 350 employees affected by the shutdown, only 6 took
advantage of the HCTC. Frankly, if the credit is unworkable and
unattainable, then there is no point in having it in the first place.
This cost is a real stumbling block for displaced workers, and we must
look at this program on a basic level of affordability for impacted
individuals.
Another problem that was identified to me during this meeting is that
the statute is unclear and too restrictive. This has made
administration of the credit difficult. For example, while the HCTC is
refundable, the IRS currently does not advance the first month's tax
credit, which means the displaced worker must pay for the entire health
care premium the first month--100 percent of the cost. This, in many
cases, causes the worker to not take advantage of the HCTC because they
simply cannot afford that first payment. In the case of the Eastern
Pulp and Paper mills, a worker and his or her spouse would have to come
up with $1,500 that first month. Clearly this would turn a prospective
beneficiary away right at the beginning. The need to streamline the
administrative process of the HCTC is paramount to making it more
accessible.
We attempt to remedy this situation in this amendment by improving
access to the credit as well as making it more effective. Not only does
the amendment increase the credit percentage from 65 percent to 75
percent of the individuals' health care premiums, but it also instructs
the IRS to provide an expedited refund of the first month's tax credit.
Workers in my home state of Maine who are being laid off have told me
that they just cannot afford the cost of health insurance. This
amendment will make health care more accessible for this population.

[[Page S4819]]

Beyond expanding the size of the credit, our amendment also provides
important outreach initiatives to get the word out to eligible workers
about the existence of the credit. For example, the amendment allows
states, to use funds from a National Emergency Grant, to provide
outreach and marketing to inform individuals of the available health
insurance options, including low cost options, that qualify for the
health care tax credit. Maine has already done this with great success
which is a testament to why we need to make this a viable option
nationwide. While this may seem like a simple change, it is one of
great impact, as too many eligible workers are unaware that these
benefits even exist.
Overall, these reforms to this vital health care tax credit are
critical to get workers and retires the information and the access they
need to ensure health insurance coverage.
The cost of this amendment is estimated to be about $5 billion over
the next 10 years for the expanded TAA benefits and the improvements to
the health care tax credit for TAA recipients. Our amendment proposes
to offset this cost by closing a loophole in the administration of the
earned income tax credit--EITC--that is allowing individuals to
inappropriately claim refundable tax benefits.
Current, Social Security numbers are provided for to individuals for
employment and to obtain Federal and State benefits. Under current law,
individuals are required to have a work related Social Security in
order to claim the earned income tax credit in every situation but one:
individuals who have attained a Social Security number solely in order
to gain State benefits.
Currently, the IRS is unable to differentiate between an individual
who has a work or non-work related Social Security number. Therefore,
individuals who are not working but have a non-work related Social
Security number are able to receive EITC without having been qualified
to do so.
The offset provision in this amendment would require every individual
claiming the EITC to have a Social Security number that is valid for
employment. Thus, individuals with non-work related Social Security
numbers, regardless of why they were offered, would not qualify.
This provision was included in the President's budget and is
estimated to raise about $5.7 billion over 10 years, by the IRS,
Treasury Department and Office of Management and Budget and fully
offsets the cost of this amendment by recouping the lost revenue from
this unintended loophole in the law.
I understand that there is technical discrepancy between Joint Tax
and the Treasury on the scoring of this offset. While its clear that it
will provide billions in savings to the Government, I intend to work
with Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus to ensure that this
entire bill meets the requirements of the Budget Act and is fully
offset according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the
Congressional Budget Office; the official score keepers for Congress,
as well as the Department of the Treasury.
The fact is trade results in both the formation of new jobs as well
as the loss of others. These assistance programs recognize this reality
and help give the American worker the education, training and skills
they need to find another job and continue in gainful employment--while
at the same time assisting them with the financial means to sustain
their families as they pursue the necessary retraining. Since 1997,
over 10,000 Mainers have applied for TAA benefits. Clearly the need for
these programs is as strong as ever.

In small towns where the livelihood of the local economy depends on
one industry, one plant or one company that is suffering under trade
liberalization, it can cause devastation when that steel mill, paper
mill, or textile mill shuts down. I have personally witnessed time and
time again the hardship that trade liberalization policies can cause.
In towns like East Millinocket and Millinocket, ME, where Great
Northern Paper went bankrupt; in Waterville, ME, where Hathaway Shirt
shut down as a result of shirt production being moved overseas; or most
recently the Eastern Pulp & Paper mills in Lincoln and Brewer, ME,
local economies were sent into disarray. These closures have a ripple
effect throughout the region. Efforts were made in these communities to
form transition teams to assist the impacted workers find the
assistance resources necessary to survive financially through these
difficult times. I helped lead the way to these assistance resources,
but I continue to recognize that these communities need much broader
assistance. That is just part of the reason I have been so adamant in
my support for improvements in Trade Adjustment Assistance.
With the momentum provided by the passage and implementation of Trade
Promotion Authority, the President has moved aggressively on an agenda
of bilateral, regional and global agreements that promote the
liberalization of trade and seek to grow the U.S. economy. As the
President has argued, this policy agenda creates new opportunities for
prosperity and growth. But in order for this to work, free trade has to
be fair and we must be diligent in enforcing the rules to ensure we are
operating on a level playing field.
At the same time, we must never forget that opportunities of market
access, improved consumer choice, and availability of manufacturing
inputs come with the price of transitions, dislocations, and shifts in
the U.S. economy. America's workers--both manufacturing and service
sector--and communities are often faced with difficult realities in the
rapidly changing nature of international trade liberalization.
However, while technological advances are the initiative of private
enterprise, trade liberalization and enforcement is the chosen policy
of government. Change and progress can be good, but we must never
ignore or forget those Americans who find themselves unfairly treated
in an era of global commerce. Congress must make the difficult
decisions to turn these challenges into opportunities for this Nation.
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment and join my
colleagues as we continue to recognize and address the oft-ignored
consequences of international trade liberalization. At the end of the
day, it is the people and communities of this nation that matter most,
and when policies which hurt their economic livelihoods are promulgated
by government, it is incumbent upon all of us to find ways to help.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I ask how much time is left on both
sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Oregon has
expired. The Senator from Iowa controls 4 minutes 45 seconds.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both sides be
given an additional 3 minutes on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ALLEN). Who yields time?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if we go into a quorum call, I ask
unanimous consent that the time be divided proportionately.
Mr. NICKLES. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will use my time.
Mr. President, the point is this. It is quite simple. We in America
are faced with immense competitive pressure worldwide. We are concerned
about a lot of jobs being lost in America. Some are being lost within
America; some are being lost in other countries. It is an offshore
issue. It is a big question in America.
There are a lot of Senators here who are trying to address this
question but who are trying not to vote for so-called protectionist
amendments; that is, amendments which say a company cannot do this or
that. I agree with that sentiment. But I also think--and I daresay that
most Senators would agree with this next point--that we should do
something for our employees who lose their jobs through no fault of
their own.
We already have a very small program called trade adjustment
assistance for manufacturing industry jobs that are lost on account of
trade. We do not provide for service industry workers who lose their
jobs on account of trade. Service jobs are lost by a larger margin than
in the past simply because so much information in America

[[Page S4820]]

is now being digitized and because of the advance of broadband
telecommunications. So a lot of service industry jobs--analyzing
programs, reading x rays, and other jobs--go overseas from American
companies. Orders come over at the speed of light and the product goes
back at the speed of light.
What we are saying is this is a constructive, positive response by
the Congress to deal with and help those people who lose their jobs on
account of trade. It is not a massive program as has been described.
Only about 150,000 people qualify today for TAA. Only 5 percent of
American workers use it. We are saying just expand it to the service
industry. That is not a big expansion. A very small percentage is going
to be able to use it.
It has not been pointed out by the other side that you have to be
enrolled in a retraining program to use these benefits. The key is to
have enough of a benefit so people don't just run off and who want to
go into retraining to avoid taking a McDonald's job or some minuscule
minimum wage job.
I urge my colleagues to put this in the context of what is really
going on and not get sidetracked by a lot of arguments that get down in
the weeds but which really don't address the larger issue, which is
that this is the one opportunity--and it is very minuscule--to help
American workers who lose their jobs, and not only manufacturing but
service industry jobs. It is a positive, constructive response; it is
not a protectionist response.
I urge my colleagues to support this one chance we have this year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I just spoke for 30 seconds to get in
the point that the Business Roundtable had called the offices of the
various sponsors of this amendment saying that the Business Roundtable
does not support this amendment. We were also told by the authors that
the Information Technology Industry Council supported the amendment. I
have had contact, through staff, with a Joe Pasetti of the Information
Technology Industry Council, who made it clear they have not taken a
position on the Wyden amendment. I think it would be incorrect to quote
them as saying they support this amendment.
There are a couple of points I want to make about the points the
proponents have made. The proponents, in opening debate, were concerned
about the affordability of coverage. Yet their changes will make
coverage less affordable. The amendment creates a back door exception
to a requirement to have 3 months of coverage. This requirement is
consistent with HIPAA standards and was agreed to when we adopted this
original expansion of TAA in August 2002.
The changes to the rule will require health insurers to offer
coverage to higher risk individuals. Health insurers, like the
BlueCross BlueShield plans, will either have to increase premiums or
not offer coverage. I have said many times that you ought to be
concerned about affordability. The authors of the amendment say they
are concerned about affordability, but the amendment will make coverage
more unaffordable. Fewer people will be able to use the credit.
Proponents of the amendment also have made the claim that I have
referred to before where they said only 5 percent of the people are
making use of this new program. Well, what do you expect after just 9
months being operational--just 9 months before the massive expansion of
this program? But they refer to this 5 percent. They would make it
broader and say we have a low uptake rate and that this signals failure
of the program we adopted 2 years ago, which is now just being
undertaken for 9 months.
Let me repeat that this program is a very young program. The
enrollment numbers only reflect those who have signed up for the
advanceable credit. The numbers don't include dependents. The numbers
don't include people who claim the credit on their yearend return. We
would not even know that yet. Treasury is trying to analyze that data
of the people who claimed the yearend credit. Just like I said, we
don't have complete data. What would you expect after only 9 months? I
hope our colleagues will take this into consideration when looking at a
massive expansion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. How much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 3 minutes 40
seconds. The time of the Senator from Oregon has expired.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield me the remainder of the time?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, we
are going to vote in a moment. I have two or three quick comments I
want to make. My very good friend from Oregon--and he is my good
friend--as he is trying to find another vote said, wait a minute, we
should not treat service workers differently than those in
manufacturing. I used to run a manufacturing company. Manufacturing,
frankly, in this country has been on about a 40-year decline, almost
straight, on the number of jobs. The service industry, on the other
hand, has been quite volatile, but jobs are increasing--frankly,
increasing in lots of different and exciting ways.
But to say we are going to have a Federal benefit if somebody works
in a job for 26 weeks and somebody says, I lost my job and I think I
lost it because of overseas competition, therefore, I am entitled to 2
years of unemployment compensation, I am entitled to a refundable,
advanceable tax credit, and basically to have the Federal Government
pay for my health care--three-fourths of it--for the next 2 years, and
to get cash assistance of up to $5,000 a year for each year, I think is
going over board. It costs a lot of money.
The Congressional Budget Office scored this. We just got this. You
ask, why? We just got the amendment, so we just got the score from CBO.
It says the outlays to this are $5.3 billion in BA, or obligation
authority. The tax credit would cost $669 million over the next 10
years. The cost is about $6 billion. According to Joint Tax, it is not
paid for.
I don't really think we should have the Federal Government using our
resources, which are limited--and we have an enormous deficit--for
paying three-fourths of the cost of a worker's health care costs for 2
years because they happened to work for 6 months. I don't think that
makes good sense for a lot of reasons. I don't think it makes good
sense to lower the eligibility on this wage insurance program and that
we are going to pay people $5,000 a year because they might take a
lower paying job. I think that sounds so socialistic. Somebody says
that is better than unemployment comp. This is in addition to
unemployment comp. So we are going to do unemployment comp, do your
health care, give you cash in the meantime, and do your retraining.
I don't think the Federal Government can do it all. This program has
grown from 300-some-million dollars in 2001 to $800 million in 2004. If
this amendment passes, it would be a billion dollars plus. I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor, of supporting the budget although there
may be a motion to waive this pay-go point of order.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
I make a point of order that the amendment offered by my good friend,
the Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden, increases mandatory spending
and, if adopted, would cause an increase in the deficit in excess of
the levels permitted in the most recently adopted budget resolution.
Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to
section 505 of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2004.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 505(b) of House
Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2004, I move to waive section 505 of that concurrent
resolution for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page S4821]]

Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

YEAS--54

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--45

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Kerry

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are
45. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Virginia is recognized.
The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from Virginia.

Amendment No. 3113

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3113.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The journal clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Allen], for himself and Mr.
Edwards proposes an amendment numbered 3113.

Mr. ALLEN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide mortgage payment assistance for employees who are
separated from employment)

At the end add the following:

TITLE IX--HOMESTEAD PRESERVATION ACT

SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Homestead Preservation
Act''.

SEC. 902. MORTGAGE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE.

(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development (referred to in this section as the
``Secretary'') shall establish a program under which the
Secretary shall award low-interest loans to eligible
individuals to enable such individuals to continue to make
mortgage payments with respect to the primary residences of
such individuals.
(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a loan under
the program established under subsection (a), an individual
shall be--
(1) an individual that is a worker adversely affected by
international economic activity, as determined by the
Secretary;
(2) a borrower under a loan which requires the individual
to make monthly mortgage payments with respect to the primary
place of residence of the individual; and
(3) enrolled in a training or assistance program.
(c) Loan Requirements.--
(1) In general.--A loan provided to an eligible individual
under this section shall--
(A) be for a period of not to exceed 12 months;
(B) be for an amount that does not exceed the sum of--
(i) the amount of the monthly mortgage payment owed by the
individual; and
(ii) the number of months for which the loan is provided;
(C) have an applicable rate of interest that equals 4
percent;
(D) require repayment as provided for in subsection (d);
and
(E) be subject to such other terms and conditions as the
Secretary determines appropriate.
(2) Account.--A loan awarded to an individual under this
section shall be deposited into an account from which a
monthly mortgage payment will be made in accordance with the
terms and conditions of such loan.
(d) Repayment.--
(1) In general.--An individual to which a loan has been
awarded under this section shall be required to begin making
repayments on the loan on the earlier of--
(A) the date on which the individual has been employed on a
full-time basis for 6 consecutive months; or
(B) the date that is 1 year after the date on which the
loan has been approved under this section.
(2) Repayment period and amount.--
(A) Repayment period.--A loan awarded under this section
shall be repaid on a monthly basis over the 5-year period
beginning on the date determined under paragraph (1).
(B) Amount.--The amount of the monthly payment described in
subparagraph (A) shall be determined by dividing the total
amount provided under the loan (plus interest) by 60.
(C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall
be construed to prohibit an individual from--
(i) paying off a loan awarded under this section in less
than 5 years; or
(ii) from paying a monthly amount under such loan in excess
of the monthly amount determined under subparagraph (B) with
respect to the loan.
(e) Regulations.--Not later than 6 weeks after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate
regulations necessary to carry out this section, including
regulations that permit an individual to certify that the
individual is an eligible individual under subsection (b).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $10,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina as a cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask my good friend from Virginia, since
he has such a good amendment, is the Senator prepared to go to a vote
in favor of this amendment? This Senator is inclined to vote for the
amendment, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the
amendment. Because we are going to accept this amendment, I wonder if
the Senator could agree to a voice vote on his amendment so we can get
to the spouses' dinner more quickly.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I certainly wouldn't want to do anything to
harm the ability of Senators to be with their spouses, and I certainly
consider that a pressing question. Yes, I would accept that offer and
that proposal. I will only make a few comments so people know what they
are voice voting on. I will take no more than a few minutes. That is a
kind offer.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the Homestead
Preservation Act. I filed this amendment to this underlying legislation
to repeal the FSC/ETI tax regime.
I support the JOBS bill which should be focused on helping our
manufacturers here in this country and also help increase jobs. The
efforts made in the prior amendment were very commendable in many
regards. This amendment would provide displaced workers access to
short-term, low-interest loans to help meet monthly home mortgage
payments while training for or seeking new employment.
This is a commonsense, compassionate amendment designed to help
working families who through no fault of their own were adversely
affected or lost their jobs due to international competition.
We have seen across this country--whether in the Southeast, or the
Northeast, or the Midwest--uneasy times for everyone. Many regions of
this country, from the Southeast, the Northeast and the Midwest and
especially in places like southwest Virginia where we see a lot of job
losses in the textile and apparel industry as well as furniture
manufacturing, which has been especially hard hit. Any time one of
these factories closes, it is a devastating blow to all the families
and businesses in that community and in the region.

I was proud to actually see the response of close-knit communities in
southwest Virginia where everyone came together to help those who had
lost a job. When companies like Pluma, Tultex, Pillowtex and others
closed their doors and thousands of jobs were

[[Page S4822]]

lost; not one or two, but multiples of thousands.
Most recently in Galax, VA--otherwise known as the home of the ``Old-
Time Fiddlers Convention''--Webb Furniture Enterprises closed their
doors due to international competition. This amendment will help those
families--not just in Virginia but across this country. The proposal
would direct the Department of Housing and Urban Development--HUD--to
help through these tough times.
I understand no government loan or government assistance will
substitute for a job. But there are ways we can assist in this regard.
We ought to find ways to ease the stress and turmoil for people whose
lives are unexpectedly thrown into transition after years of steady
employment with a company that suddenly disappears.
While they are looking for jobs and getting retraining, people are
worrying about their homes. Often the biggest financial investment in
someone's life is their home. They have a lot of equity built into that
home. Again, while they are getting training and looking for another
job, those mortgage payments are still there.
When I saw this sort of economic disaster hit Martinsville a few
years ago, it struck me so much like a natural disaster as far as the
devastation. But in many regards it is worse than a natural disaster
because after a natural disaster there is a buildup. There is hope for
the future. In an economic disaster with the loss of thousands of jobs,
there is no clear rebuilding process.
The point is the Federal Government, in my view, ought to make
similar assistance available to homeowners in economic disasters as is
available when there is a natural disaster.
That is the rationale behind my amendment--the Homestead Preservation
Act. This legislation will provide temporary mortgage assistance to
displaced workers by helping them make ends meet during their search
for a new job. Specifically, the Homestead Preservation Act authorizes
HUD to administer a low-interest loan program at 4 percent for workers
displaced due to international competition. The loan is for up to an
amount of 12 monthly mortgage payments--only 12, 1 year--for home
mortgage payments only. The program is authorized at $10 million per
year for 5 years. The loan would be paid off.
These are not grants. They are loans to be repaid over a period of 5
years. No payments, though, would be required until 6 months after the
borrower has returned to work full time, or 1 year, whichever is
applicable. The loan is available only for the cost of the monthly home
mortgage payment, and covers only those workers displaced due to
international competition. It requires individuals seeking to avail
themselves of this loan program to be enrolled in job training or job
assistance programs.
The Homestead Preservation Act provides temporary financial tools
necessary for displaced workers to get back on their feet and to
succeed. It is logical and, in my view, a responsible response.
This measure garnered strong bipartisan support the last time it was
considered by the Senate. I respectfully urge my colleagues to
recognize the value Americans place on owning a home, and support this
caring and needed initiative.
If no one has anything further to say about it, I urge adoption of
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3113) was agreed to.
Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ALLEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Reform

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there is another point that I would like
to discuss with the chairman for the record, regarding a form of
restitution that is often authorized for rebates in the case of
regulated utility providers whose rates to consumers are regulated. Due
to a change of circumstances or other factors, the rates that were
charged for a particular period may be determined to be greater than
should have been charged if all relevant factors had been known and
properly accounted for. Due to the large number of customers and the
relatively small amounts involved, the regulatory authority frequently
permits the utility to adjust rates to provide compensatory rebates for
all current customers. This avoids, for example, tracing former
occupants of an address served by the utility or otherwise tracing
former customers for relatively small amounts. It is my understanding
that this type of procedure would qualify as restitution because
substantially all the payments are directed to the actual parties that
overpaid.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have once again had a productive day. I
thank all Senators. We adopted several amendments. First is the
overtime amendment, an issue which has occupied the Senate for some
good amount of time. The Senate also adopted the amendment of the
Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, her manufacturing jobs credit
amendment. The Senate has also addressed the trade adjustment
assistance amendment.
We have a number of major amendments pending. In the morning, we hope
to have debate on Senator Dorgan's runaway plant amendment which is
already pending. Senator Graham of Florida has an amendment already
offered, as well as Senator Breaux's repatriation amendment. We hope to
vote early in the afternoon on all those pending amendments.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________