[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 25545-25546]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                INTRODUCTION OF THE FOREWARN ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN M. McHUGH

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 25, 2007

  Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Forewarn Act 
of 2007, which is designed to help American workers by improving the 
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act (P.L. 100-
379).
  The WARN Act became effective nearly two decades ago in February 
1989. Very simply, Congress rightly decided that it was good policy to 
ensure that workers receive 60 days advance notice of mass lay-offs and 
closures to facilitate their efforts to find a new job, obtain 
retraining, or otherwise prepare for the consequences of their 
employer's decision. Likewise, through the WARN Act, Congress required 
that the same 60-day notice be provided to state dislocated worker 
entities and the chief elected official of the pertinent local 
government to enhance their ability to respond to the situation and 
provide effective assistance.
  I had the occasion to thoroughly review the WARN Act earlier this 
year when the General Motors (GM) Corporation unfortunately decided to 
phase out 500 jobs and close its Powertrain facility in Massena, New 
York, which I represent. As I have mentioned previously, it is 
difficult to overstate how important the plant's $31 million annual 
payroll was to the local economy and how devastating GM's decision was 
to its employees, their families, and the residents of St. Lawrence and 
Franklin counties.
  Despite the magnitude of this decision's impact upon my constituents, 
GM did not provide me with any advance notice. In fairness to GM, there 
was no legal requirement under the WARN Act that GM provide me with 
such notice, which I found to be unfortunate as it limits and even 
precludes opportunities to attempt to provide any and all assistance 
that could possibly prevent a closure or mass lay-off and the 
corresponding loss of jobs. In the event that the closure or mass lay-
off is unavoidable, adequate advance notice allows elected 
representatives to begin taking actions to assist the individuals and 
community as they transition.
  Accordingly, the Forewarn Act would expand the WARN Act's notice 
requirements to include the U.S. Senators and Representatives, as well 
as state senators and representatives who represent the area in which 
the facility is located. In addition, the Forewarn Act would require 
that notice be provided to the affected state's governor, as well as to 
the U.S. Secretary of Labor. As the intent of this notice is to allow 
elected officials to attempt to provide assistance, the amount of 
notice would be expanded from 60 to 90 days.
  Additionally, the Forewarn Act would also increase the notice 
requirement for employers with 50 or more employees to 90 calendar 
days. By doing so, the Forewarn Act would

[[Page 25546]]

enhance employees' ability to adjust to their change in job status. The 
Forewarn Act would also redefine mass lay-off to cover lay-offs of at 
least 25 employees who account for one-third of an employer's workforce 
or mass lay-offs of at least 100 employees.
  To ensure compliance, the Forewarn Act would increase the back pay 
penalty; workers would receive 2 days pay multiplied by the number of 
calendar days short of 90 that the employer gives notice. Likewise, the 
Forewarn Act would allow the U.S. Secretary of Labor or the appropriate 
state attorney general to bring a civil action on behalf of employees 
and require the Secretary of Labor to provide educational materials 
concerning employees' rights and employer responsibilities.
  It has been nearly two decades since the WARN Act was enacted. In 
that time, our nation's economy has changed markedly as U.S. firms have 
restructured their operations to adjust to an increasingly competitive 
global marketplace. It is time to revisit and retool the WARN Act, and 
with the introduction of the Forewarn Act, I invite my colleagues to 
join with me in doing so.

                          ____________________