[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.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2004.

        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.

                          ____________________