U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–138 PDF 2007

HOW EFFECTIVE ARE EXISTING

PROGRAMS IN HELPING WORKERS

IMPACTED BY INTERNATIONAL TRADE?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 26, 2007

Serial No. 110–15

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

(

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Bob Inglis, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on March 26, 2007 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Members: 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Pennsylvania, prepared statement of .......................................................... 80

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ Senior Republican Member, Committee 

on Education and Labor ............................................................................... 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor ......... 1

Statement of Witnesses: 

Alford, Tim, Ph.D., director, Office of Workforce Development .................... 38

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40

Bevard, David Lee, former employee of Maytag Refrigeration Products ..... 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Brainard, Lael, Ph.D., vice president and director, Bernard L. Schwartz 

Chair in International Economics, the Brookings Global Economy and 

Development Program .................................................................................. 34

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35

Internet address to Brookings Institution commentary, ‘‘A Fairer 

Deal for America’s Workers in a New Era of Offshoring,’’ dated 

September 14, 2005 ............................................................................... 81

Internet address to the Commonwealth Fund’s issue brief, ‘‘Limited 

Take-Up of Health Coverage Tax Credits: A Challenge to Future 

Tax Credit Design,’’ dated October 2005 ............................................. 81

Internet address to the Economic Policy Institute’s briefing paper, 

‘‘Globalization That Works for Working Americans,’’ dated January 

11, 2007 .................................................................................................. 81

Wall Street Journal article, ‘‘Federal Aid Does Little for Free Trade’s 

Losers,’’ dated March 1, 2007 ............................................................... 82

Dorn, Stan, J.D., senior research associate, the Urban Institute ................. 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

Herman, Bruce G., executive director, National Employment Law Project 22

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24

Lee, Thea, policy director, AFL–CIO .............................................................. 42

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44

(1)

HOW EFFECTIVE ARE EXISTING

PROGRAMS IN HELPING WORKERS 

IMPACTED BY INTERNATIONAL TRADE? 

Monday, March 26, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:03 p.m., in room 2175, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Scott, Woolsey, Wu, 

Sanchez, Loebsack, Yarmuth, Hare, Clarke, Courtney, Shea-Porter, 

McKeon, Wilson, Kline and Heller. 

Staff Present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease Alli, 

Hearing Clerk; Carlos Fenwick, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee 

on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions; Michael Gaffin, Staff 

Assistant, Labor; Jeffrey Hancuff, Staff Assistant, Labor; Brian 

Kennedy, General Counsel; Joe Novotney, Chief Clerk; Megan 

O’Reilly, Labor Policy Advisor; Rachel Racusen, Deputy Communications Director; Michele Varnhagen, Labor Policy Director; Mark 

Zuckerman, Staff Director; Robert Borden, Minority General Counsel; Steve Forde, Minority Communications Director; Ed Gilroy, Minority Director of Workforce Policy; Rob Gregg, Minority Legislative Assistant; Jessica Gross, Minority Deputy Press Secretary; Victor Klatt, Minority Staff Director; Stephanie Milburn, Professional 

Staff Member; Molly McLaughlin Salmi, Minority Deputy Director 

of Workforce Policy; and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel. 

Chairman MILLER. The Committee on Education and Labor will 

come to order this afternoon for the purposes of conducting a hearing on, How effective are existing programs in helping workers impacted by international trade? Today, the committee will begin an 

examination of the U.S. trade policy and how it is affecting American workers. 

The trade policy is a controversial subject with strong points of 

view on both sides. When free trade agreements were being proposed in the early 1990s, proponents argued that they would 

produce a net economic benefit for the United States and its trading partners. It is true that there have been many winners of free 

trade in the United States. In the United States, the average consumer can buy a wide range of goods at more affordable prices, and 

2

in some developing countries, like China and India, the middle 

class is emerging. 

Yet, it is becoming ever clear that the free trade process is at a 

standstill. More countries are objecting to signing broad agreements. Citizen opposition to free trade is widespread around the 

world, and there is growing evidence that wage and health inequality is growing rather than shrinking internationally. In the United 

States, as we will hear today, too many workers are being hurt by 

international outsourcing and its resulting plant shutdowns. The 

effects are the most severe for older workers who have greater financial obligations and more limited opportunities to start or train 

for new careers, tens of thousands of laid off workers who have lost 

their homes or livelihoods and their standards of living when the 

bottom fell out from under them at work. 

American workers who are harmed by trade agreements are the 

reason we are holding this hearing. We are going to hear today 

about what happens to workers when their jobs go overseas and 

when their jobs disappear here at home. We are going to discuss 

the effectiveness of Federal programs that are intended to assist 

dislocated workers, like unemployment insurance, Trade Adjustment Assistance, the COBRA health benefits and the health care 

tax credit. 

Everyone knows these programs are too small and lack sufficient 

funding to provide adequate assistance to all of the workers who 

need it. The weekly unemployment benefit averages slightly more 

than $200 a week. The TAA program helped just 70,000 workers 

last year but had a waiting list of approximately 50,000. The 

health care tax credit enacted during the last round of trade negotiations only benefited about 28,000 workers, just 11 percent of the 

potentially 250,000 who are eligible, and that figure is also under 

challenge. 

When the international trade agreements cause American workers to lose their jobs through no fault of their own, we have a responsibility to make sure that they can make ends meet while they 

find a new job or, in the case of older workers, until they can get 

to retirement. If programs like Trade Adjustment Assistance are 

not getting the job done, then we either need to improve them or 

come up with new ways to support workers harmed by international trade, and we have to do it fast. The American workers 

and their families are already losing ground in this economy. They 

cannot wait around another decade for Congress to act. We all understand that the economy has undergone dramatic changes since 

the 1990s, and for America to retain its leadership in the global 

economy, we must now establish new public/private partnerships to 

create the industries and the jobs of the future. We must invest in 

educating a new generation of scientists and engineers. We must 

invest in cutting-edge research and development. We must make 

broadband access universal among other things. If we do all of 

these things, we can keep America’s economy strong for generations to come, but even as we do these things, we must also help 

American workers who will be inevitably caught up in the changes 

and in the transitions that take place in the globalized economy. 

The status quo will not cut it, nor will knee-jerk reactions to ongoing globalization and ongoing international competitiveness. 

3

The purpose of this hearing is to understand what we can do to 

strengthen America’s middle class, to understand the impacts on 

America’s middle class of the changing international economy, of 

the globalization of that economy, of new trade agreements. It is 

time for us to understand that no longer can these programs be an 

afterthought that are simply put up to secure votes for the trade 

agreements that are before Congress, but they must become part 

of a national plan to make sure that, in fact, people do not end up 

losing their entire middle class standard of living because of 

changes in the international economy and changes here at home in 

the local economy and in response to international trade and to 

globalization. We must consider these workers and their families 

first, and we must understand that the contract to be arrived at 

in the name of trade agreements must put them on the same footing as those who seek to benefit from those trade agreements. That 

is the challenge for this committee and for other committees of the 

Congress, but I think, as we have heard from so many businesses, 

that the time really has come to rethink that compact that has 

been established after more than a decade of aggressive trade 

agreements—bilateral, multilateral agreements—and I think it is 

appropriate that we have this hearing at this time. 

With that, I would like to recognize Mr. McKeon, the senior Republican of the committee. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing. 

Free and fair trade is the cornerstone of our Nation’s economy, 

and its impact on our workforce is an important issue for Congress 

to examine. I am pleased we are able to do so today. I have always 

believed that free and open markets comprise a rising tide meant 

to lift all boats. In our rapidly expanding global economy, for the 

United States to remain competitive, we must have a prominent 

seat at the table of free trade, and in fact, our Nation’s working 

men and women depend on us to help ensure that seat at the table. 

And that is not just rhetoric; it is reality. Just consider these facts. 

In 2005, U.S. goods and services exports accounted for more than 

10 percent of our gross domestic product and 20 percent of our 

economy’s overall growth. U.S. jobs supported by the export of 

goods pay an estimated 13 to 18 percent more than the national 

average, and according to the Institute for International Economics, if the remaining global trade barriers are eliminated, U.S. annual incomes could increase by $500 billion, adding roughly $4,500 

per household. 

Let us be clear. If we relinquish our seat at the table, scores of 

American industries dependent on marketing their products to the 

international community, including manufacturing, agriculture and 

other key industries, will suffer, and so will their workers. And I 

am not about to let that happen. And I am hopeful Congress moves 

to extend the President’s Trade Promotion Authority when it is due 

to expire this summer. Reducing trade barriers abroad will give our 

farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and service providers better access to the 95 percent of the world’s customers living outside our 

borders. And extending this authority is an important step toward 

making that happen. 

4

However, I will be the first to recognize that the impact of trade 

is not completely beneficial to every worker or to every economic 

sector whether here in the United States or with one of our trading 

partners, and for these reasons, we have established a number of 

safety nets meant to assist workers or industries who have some 

adverse consequences associated with trade. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, is one of those safety nets, 

and I will look forward to our discussion of it later in the hearing. 

While I am open-minded to potential reforms in the TAA program, 

just as I am sure my friends on both sides of the aisle are openminded to the benefits in extending a trade promotion authority, 

I believe one of the more meaningful ways we can address and help 

stem some of trade’s more adverse consequences is by reforming 

programs that train and retrain our workforce. 

Dr. Alford, I reviewed your testimony, your prepared testimony, 

and I will be eager to hear how your home State of Alabama has 

done this, because here in Congress, we have worked to do the 

same. 

In 1998, through the Workforce Investment Act, we established 

one-stop career centers to help streamline job training and retraining services available to men and women looking to sharpen their 

skills and better navigate the new century’s new economy. Republicans in the House have worked to strengthen this system even 

further, such as requiring State and local workforce investment 

boards to ensure their training system is dynamic and reflective of 

the workforce needs in the local area and allowing training for incumbent workers so employers may assist them in upgrading their 

skills. 

Our proposal from the 109th Congress also would have consolidated the Workforce Investment Act’s three adult job training programs into one consolidated adult funding stream to simplify program administration and reduce inefficiency at the State and local 

levels. This would mean more efficient service when workers need 

it most. 

Mr. Chairman, in the last Congress, this committee advanced the 

Job Training Reform Bill early on in the first session, and I am 

hopeful we will again in this year. Our bill passed the House with 

a bipartisan vote, and as we look for ways to respond to the new 

realities of the 21st Century economy, including the impact of 

trade, I believe this set of reforms is one we all can rally around. 

Therefore, I hope this panel moves expeditiously on job training reform. 

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing us together 

for today’s hearing, and I look forward to hearing our witnesses’ 

testimony and the discussion that will follow. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon,

a Representative in Congress From the State of California 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing. Free and fair trade is a cornerstone of our nation’s economy, and its impact on our workforce is an important 

issue for Congress to examine. I’m pleased we’re able to do so today. 

I’ve always believed that free and open markets comprise a ‘‘rising tide’’ meant 

to lift all boats. In our rapidly-expanding global economy, for the United States to 

remain competitive, we must have a prominent seat at the ‘‘table of free trade.’’ And 

5

in fact, our nation’s working men and women depend on us to help ensure that seat 

at the table. And that’s not just rhetoric; it’s reality. Just consider these facts: 

• In 2005, U.S. goods and services exports accounted for more than ten percent 

of our gross domestic product and 20 percent of our economy’s overall growth; 

• U.S. jobs supported by the export of goods pay an estimated 13 to 18 percent 

more than the national average; and 

• According to the Institute for International Economics, if the remaining global 

trade barriers are eliminated, U.S. annual incomes could increase by $500 billion, 

adding roughly $4,500 per household. 

Let’s be clear: if we relinquish our seat at the table, scores of American industries 

dependent on marketing their products to the international community—including 

manufacturing, agriculture, and other key industries—will suffer. And so will their 

workers. I’m not about to let that happen, and I am hopeful Congress moves to extend the President’s trade promotion authority when it is due to expire this summer. Reducing trade barriers abroad will give our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, 

and service providers better access to the 95 percent of the world’s customers living 

outside our borders, and extending this authority is an important step toward making that happen. 

However, I’ll be the first to recognize that the impact of trade is not completely 

beneficial to every worker or to every economic sector—whether here in the United 

States or with one of our trading partners. And for these reasons, we have established a number of safety nets meant to assist workers or industries who have seen 

some adverse consequences associated with trade. Trade adjustment assistance—or 

TAA—is one of those safety nets, and I’ll look forward to our discussion of it later 

in this hearing. 

While I am open minded to potential reforms in the TAA program—just as I am 

sure my friends on both sides of the aisle are open minded to the benefits in extending trade promotion authority—I believe one of the more meaningful ways we can 

address and help stem some of trade’s more adverse consequences is by reforming 

programs that train and retrain our workforce. Dr. Alford, I reviewed your prepared 

testimony, and I’ll be eager to hear how your home state of Alabama has done this 

because here in Congress, we’ve worked to do the same. 

In 1998, through the Workforce Investment Act, we established one-stop career 

centers to help streamline job training and retraining services available to men and 

women looking to sharpen their skills and better navigate the new century’s new 

economy. Republicans in the House have worked to strengthen this system even further, such as requiring state and local workforce investment boards to ensure their 

training system is dynamic and reflective of the workforce needs in the local area 

and to allow training for incumbent workers so employers may assist them in upgrading their skills. Our proposal from the 109th Congress also would have consolidated the Workforce Investment Act’s three adult job training programs into one 

consolidated adult funding stream to simplify program administration and reduce 

inefficiency at the state and local level. This would mean more efficient service 

when workers need it most. 

Mr. Chairman, in the last Congress, this Committee advanced a job training reform bill early-on in the first session, and I’m hopeful we will again in this year. 

Our bill passed the House with a bipartisan vote, and as we look for ways to respond to the new realities of the 21st Century economy—including the impact of 

trade—I believe this set of reforms is one we all can rally around. Therefore, I hope 

this panel moves expeditiously on job training reform. 

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing us together for today’s hearing. And I look forward to hearing our witnesses’ testimony and the discussion that 

will follow. 

Chairman MILLER. I thank the gentleman. I thank him for his 

comments. 

Let me be clear at the outset of this hearing that the intent of 

this hearing and the purpose is to look at the programs that are 

in place today, sort of top to bottom, and I think, if you have not 

read the testimony and you hear the testimony, you will discover 

that we have created a rather complex system for people to have 

to navigate. Not only is it very hard on them, but I question whether it is really the best use of taxpayer dollars when you look at the 

complexity of it, and what I think is there is probably bipartisan 

6

agreement about the services we are trying to provide, so I would 

just hope that everybody on the committee would understand that 

we really want to look at this in a very different light, and we are 

doing this, and for their part of it, the Ways and Means Committee 

is conducting the same effort to see whether or not we can provide 

a system that is more helpful and certainly more user-friendly. 

You know, we are working on legislation on the student loan application, to try to reduce the complexity of this and make it userfriendly for the people who have to use it. Currently, it is easier 

to go to the World Bank, as Mr. Rahm Emanuel reminded us, and 

to get a loan from the World Bank than it is to go and get a student loan. In the case of trade, we will hear about trying to acquire 

the health care benefits that are supposed to go along with this 

economic dislocation, which can also be fairly complex to say the 

least. 

We have a wonderful group of witnesses today. We are going to 

begin with Mr. David Bevard, who worked at the Maytag Refrigeration Products for 32 years. He and his wife, Pat, were two of the 

2,500 people laid off when Maytag closed its Galesburg, Illinois, 

plant. At the time of the plant closing, Mr. Bevard was president 

of the International Association of Machinists, Local 2063. Mr. 

Bevard attended Sandburg College and Northern Illinois University. 

Stan Dorn is a senior research assistant of the Urban Institute. 

He has focused on research on health coverage, tax credits, Medicaid, auto enrollment strategies and providing health coverage for 

the uninsured. Mr. Dorn previously worked at the Economics and 

Social Research Institute, the Children’s Defense Fund and served 

as managing attorney for the National Health Law Program’s 

Washington Office. 

Mr. Bruce Herman is the Executive Director of the National Employment Law Project. Mr. Herman previously served as the president of the Garment Industry Development Corporation in New 

York City and as executive director to the AFL-CIO Working for 

America Institute. Mr. Herman is a graduate of Columbia University and a recipient of the Fulbright Award. 

Dr. Lael Brainard is the vice president and director of Global 

Economy Development Center at the Brookings Institution where 

she has written extensively on worker assistance programs, particularly wage insurance. She previously worked for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and in the Clinton administration. Dr. 

Brainard has a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University. 

Dr. Tim Alford is the director of the Alabama Office of Workforce 

Development. Dr. Alford is a former teacher, principal and community college dean. He started his own consulting business designing 

workforce development programs and served as the founding executive director of a public/private economic development corporation 

in Enterprise, Alabama. Dr. Alford has a Ph.D. in Educational 

Leadership from Auburn University. 

Ms. Thea Lee is the policy director and chief international economist at the AFL-CIO where she worked on domestic and international economic policy. Previously, Ms. Lee was the international 

trade economist with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, 

D.C., and a netter of Dollars and Cents Magazine in Boston. Ms. 

7

Lee received a bachelor’s degree from Smith College and a master’s 

in economics from the University of Michigan. 

Welcome to all of you. Your written presentations will be put in 

the record in their entirety. The extent to which you can summarize would be appreciated. The light system will be, when you start 

testifying, there will be a green light. And then, later on, 4 or 5 

minutes into it, there will be a yellow light which suggests that you 

may want to start summing up, but again, we will allow you to 

complete thoughts and sentences and paragraphs, and we look forward to your testimony. And there will be questions after all of the 

panel has testified. 

Mr. Bevard, we are going to begin with you. If you will turn your 

mike on, we will get going. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID LEE BEVARD, GALESBURG, IL 

Mr. BEVARD. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with 

you here today. 

My name is Dave Bevard. For 32 years, I worked at Maytag Refrigeration Products in Galesburg, Illinois, along with my wife, Pat. 

We were two of the approximately 2,500 people at the plant who 

believed that, if you worked hard, played by the rules and made 

a quality product, you would be rewarded for your efforts. Instead, 

on October 11th, 2002, we were given a pink slip and told that our 

plant would close and move to Mexico within 2 years. At the time 

of the closing, I was president of Local IM 2063, representing the 

workers at the facility. 

Until you have experienced it, you cannot truly appreciate the 

emotional devastation of knowing that the world as you know it is 

gone. After the final plant closing, I was able to work for the next 

year as a peer counselor through an outstanding AFL-CIO community service program to assist my fellow dislocated workers. In 

Galesburg, we were fortunate to have an excellent local workforce 

investment group to work with us as well as assistance from the 

State of Illinois who set up a facility for workers with additional 

programs and funding. I was able to experience firsthand and 

through working with my friends and coworkers the transition 

through job loss and into an uncertain future. 

The first necessity for displaced workers is counseling. As a peer 

counselor, I saw many individuals who were ready to throw up 

their hands and completely give up. With counseling and referring 

them to the proper channels, we were able to assist workers 

through their journey. I know counseling works. Work very much 

defines a person. Job loss is devastating, and the feelings of abandonment, failure, fear, anger and others are often not adequately 

addressed. Job loss is usually unexpected, and most people are not 

prepared to reinvent themselves and determine what to do with the 

rest of their lives. 

Amidst the emotional turmoil of the job loss, workers are quickly 

buried in a morass of bureaucracy and information that is difficult 

at best to sort out and comprehend. Maneuvering through the 

Trade Adjustment Act and other programs can be like entering a 

bureaucratic minefield. One wrong step and you may lose out on 

your eligibility for benefits. Further, it is often difficult to get clear 

8

and consistent answers concerning eligibility and available benefits. The result is that programs are not always uniformly implemented from one area to another or even within the same area. 

Workers would greatly benefit from having a single point of contact 

and support so they can receive a clear, concise and consistent interpretation of programs and their implementation. 

Since unemployment insurance is the first thing many workers 

seek when they lose a job, it would make sense to me that the unemployment insurance program have trained and dedicated staff to 

provide the outreach, intake counseling and referral help that 

trade-affected workers need. For those who qualify for Federal benefits, such as those available through the Trade Adjustment Act, 

they do provide additional assistance for displaced workers for 

which we are grateful, but they are not without their shortcomings. 

In very general terms, TAA is supposed to provide up to 2 years 

of schooling or training, supplemented in conjunction with 2 years 

of unemployment. Unfortunately, plant closures rarely follow such 

a tidy schedule, and unemployment benefits and schooling rarely 

coincide. In our case, the plant closed in late September, so unemployment benefits began in October. However, schooling or training 

for most individuals did not start until the following January. 

Many people then must decide whether to compromise their program into something shorter or decide what they will do when 

their income runs out 3 months before their schooling is completed. 

When workers do choose a course of study, there may not be programs available in their areas of interest. If there are educational 

programs available, these programs may not be in fields that are 

determined to be growth areas and are therefore ineligible for funding. Sometimes educational facilities are not equipped to handle 

the number of applicants. Also, accredited schooling and training 

programs can often be in a state of flux where a program may be 

accepted under TAA at the beginning of a semester only to be 

dropped by the end. 

Another major problem in our area was funding. There were numerous periods of gaps in funding. When laid off, workers attempted to sign up for training only to find that that there were 

only enough funds for a portion of them. The others were put on 

hold until more funding came through, but meanwhile, their unemployment benefits are ticking away. Due to funding delays and 

available programs, some workers were, in effect, forced to scrap 

the educational opportunities that they were supposed to be entitled to. Workers should not be penalized for lack of funding. 

There are two other areas of concern that should be mentioned: 

financial counseling and health care. With job loss and reemployment at a lower income level, financial counseling should be made 

available to everyone. Also, with our job loss was the loss of health 

care benefits. In Illinois, Governor Blagojevich has implemented a 

program called All Kids, which makes affordable health care available for all children in our State. This program has been a Godsend 

for parents. However, due to the high costs and lack of benefits 

from their new jobs, far too many parents go without any health 

care and are one catastrophic illness away from disaster. 

The promise and the end result of all of the training is supposed 

to be workers who are trained in technical and specialized skills 

9

and placed in better jobs. In our experience, most of the workers 

who have completed their training and schooling have jobs in fields 

not related to their training, and also, with only a handful of exceptions, the new jobs pay substantially less than the jobs lost and 

usually with few, if any, benefits. In many cases, workers are reemployed in jobs that pay half of what they were previously making. 

As for my own personal experience, my wife had great difficulty 

psychologically adjusting to the loss of the job she had loved for 30 

years. She was hired to work part-time in retail until she was diagnosed with cancer last September. She is currently completing her 

treatments. From the plant closure, I was fortunate to work for 

over a year as a peer counselor, working to transition my fellow coworkers into their new lives. After that, I was able to work in a 

contract job that lasted a few months. For a time, I stayed home 

after that to assist my wife through her surgery and recovery. I 

have applied for schooling, but our area has again been experiencing funding gaps, so currently, there is no money available. 

Today, I am unemployed and looking for work. And I have found 

that, despite my background, my age works against me. We are 

lucky enough to currently have health care, but the costs are severely cutting into us, and we are concerned about losing it. 

While we are grateful for the programs that are available, I do 

not know what we would have done without them. These programs 

do have serious shortcomings that could be greatly improved. The 

plain truth is that none of these programs make up for failed trade 

policies or adequately compensate us for the job loss and the disruption of our lives. Trade Adjustment Assistance and other programs are no substitute for fair trade agreements. Bad trade policies are devastating our manufacturing industry and hurting millions of workers. We must have fair trade agreements and ways to 

create and keep good jobs so that we can keep our middle class, 

which is the bedrock of our democracy. 

I would again like to thank Chairman Miller and the rest of the 

committee for this opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Bevard follows:]

Prepared Statement of David Lee Bevard,

Former Employee of Maytag Refrigeration Products 

Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for 

giving me the opportunity to speak with you here today. 

My name is Dave Bevard. I worked at Maytag Refrigeration Products in Galesburg, Illinois for 32 years, along with my wife, Pat. We were two of the approximately 2,500 people at the plant who believed that if you worked hard, played by 

the rules and made a quality product, you would be rewarded for your efforts. Instead, on October 11, 2002, we were given a pink slip and told that our plant would 

close and move to Mexico within two years. At the time of the closing, I was President of I.A.M. Local 2063 representing our workers at the facility. 

Until you have experienced it, you cannot truly appreciate the emotional devastation of knowing that the world as you know it is gone. After the final plant closing, 

I was able to work for the next year as a peer counselor through an outstanding 

AFL-CIO community service program to assist my fellow dislocated workers. 

In Galesburg, we were fortunate to have an excellent local Workforce Investment 

group to work with us as well as assistance from the State of Illinois, who set up 

a facility for workers with additional programs and funding. I was able to experience first hand and through working with my friends and co-workers the transition 

through job loss and into an uncertain future. 

10

The first necessity for displaced workers is counseling. As a peer counselor, I saw 

many individuals who were ready to throw up their hands and completely give up. 

With counseling and referring them through the proper channels, we were able to 

assist workers through their journey. Counseling works. 

Work very much defines a person. Job loss is devastating and the feelings of abandonment, failure, fear, anger and others are often not adequately addressed. Job 

loss is usually unexpected and most people are not prepared to reinvent themselves 

and determine what to do with the rest of their lives. Amid the emotional turmoil 

of the job loss, workers are quickly buried in a morass of bureaucracy and information that is difficult at best to sort out and comprehend. 

Maneuvering through the Trade Adjustment Act and other programs can be like 

entering a bureaucratic minefield. One wrong step and you may lose out on your 

eligibility for benefits. Further, it is often difficult to get clear and consistent answers concerning eligibility and available benefits. The result is that programs are 

not always uniformly implemented from one area to another or even within the 

same area. Workers would greatly benefit from having a single point of contact and 

support so they can receive clear, concise and consistent interpretation of programs 

and their implementation. Since Unemployment Insurance is the first thing many 

workers seek when they lose a job, it would make sense to me that the Unemployment Insurance program have trained and dedicated staff to provide the outreach, 

intake, counseling and referral help that trade affected workers need. 

For those who qualify for federal benefits, such as those available through the 

Trade Adjustment Act, they do provide some additional assistance for displaced 

workers for which we are grateful, but they are not without their shortcomings. In 

very general terms, TAA is supposed to provide up to two years of training or education supplemented in conjunction with two years of unemployment. Unfortunately, 

plant closures rarely follow such a tidy schedule and schooling and unemployment 

benefits rarely coincide. In our case, the plant closed in late September, so unemployment benefits began in October. However, schooling or training for most individuals, did not start until the following January. Many people must then decide 

whether to compromise their program into something shorter or decide what they 

will do when their income runs out three months before their schooling is completed. 

When workers do choose a course of study, there may not be programs available 

in their area of interest. If there are educational programs available, these programs 

may not be in fields that are determined to be ‘‘growth areas’’ and are therefore ineligible for funding. Sometimes educational facilities are not equipped to handle the 

number of applicants. Also, accredited schooling and training programs can often be 

in a state of flux. A program may be accepted under TAA at the beginning of a semester only to be dropped by the end. 

A major problem in our area was funding. There were numerous periods of gaps 

in funding. When laid off, workers attempted to sign up for training only to find 

that there were only enough funds for a portion of them. The others were put on 

hold until more funding came through. Meanwhile, their unemployment benefits are 

ticking away. Due to funding delays and available programs, some workers were in 

effect forced to scrap the educational opportunities that they were supposed to be 

entitled to. Workers should not be penalized for lack of funding. 

There are two other areas of concern that should be mentioned; financial counseling and health care. With job loss and re-employment at a lower income level, 

financial counseling should be made available to everyone. Also with our job loss 

was the loss of health care benefits. In Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich has implemented 

a program called AllKids which makes affordable healthcare available for all children in our state. This program has been a godsend for parents. However, due to 

the high cost and lack of benefits from their new jobs, far too many parents go without any health care and are one catastrophic illness away from disaster. 

The promise and end result of all of the training is supposed to be workers who 

are trained in technical and specialized skills and placed in ‘‘better’’ jobs. In our experience, most of the workers who have completed their schooling have jobs in fields 

not related to their training. Also, with only a handful of exceptions, the new jobs 

pay substantially less than the job lost and usually with few if any benefits. In 

many cases, workers are reemployed in jobs that pay half of what they were previously making. 

As for my own personal experience, my wife had great difficulty, psychologically, 

adjusting to the loss of the job that she had loved for thirty years. She was hired 

to work part time in retail until she was diagnosed with cancer last September. She 

is currently completing her treatments. Upon the plant closure, I was fortunate to 

work for over a year as a peer counselor working to transition my fellow co-workers 

into their new lives. After that, I was able to work in a contract job that lasted a 

11

few months. I stayed home, after that, to assist my wife through her surgery and 

recovery. I had applied for schooling but our area has again been experiencing funding gaps so currently there is no money available. Today, I am unemployed and 

looking for work. I have found that despite my background, my age works against 

me. We are lucky enough to currently have health care but the costs are severely 

cutting into us and we are concerned about losing it due to cost. 

While we are grateful for the programs that are available, I don’t know what we 

would have done without them; these programs do have serious shortcomings and 

could be greatly improved. The plain truth is that none of these programs make up 

for failed trade policies or adequately compensate us for our job loss and the disruption of our lives. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance and other programs are no substitute for fair trade 

agreements. Bad trade policies are devastating our manufacturing industry and are 

hurting millions of workers. We must have fair trade agreements and ways to create 

and keep good jobs so that we can keep our middle class which is the bedrock of 

our democracy. 

I would again like to thank Chairman Miller and the Committee for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Dorn. 

STATEMENT OF STAN DORN, J.D., SENIOR RESEARCH 

ASSOCIATE, THE URBAN INSTITUTE 

Mr. DORN. Good afternoon, Chairman Miller, Congressman 

McKeon and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and more importantly, thank you 

for your attention to this issue. 

As I think the opening comments indicated this afternoon, it 

seems to me that the plight of displaced workers is something that 

we all ought to be able to rally around. No matter how you feel 

about international trade, I think we all agree there are winners 

and losers. And it is critically important that those workers who 

suffer get the basic necessities of life, one of which is health care. 

Congress recognized this in 2002 in adopting an innovative Health 

Coverage Tax Credit, and I would like to discuss with you today 

the operation of that credit, how effective it has been in meeting 

the needs of displaced workers for health insurance, and some 

ways that Congress can improve the credit so that it does a better 

job. 

The Health Coverage Tax Credit, or HCTC, pays 65 percent of 

the health insurance premiums for displaced workers who receive 

certain other forms of Trade Adjustment Assistance. The credit is 

fully refundable. That means that, even if you owe little or no Federal income tax, you still can receive the credit if you qualify. Its 

most innovative feature is that it is advance-able. You do not have 

to wait until the end of the year to claim your credit. You can have 

it paid each month directly to your insurance company when premiums are due. The credit may only be used for qualified insurance, which typically means COBRA coverage offered by a former 

employer or a State qualified plan or a private insurance plan arranged by your State. This program has considerable accomplishments to its credit which I discuss in my written testimony, but unfortunately, it does not do a very effective job of meeting displaced 

workers’ needs for health care. 

Mr. Chairman, as you noted in your opening remarks, the OMB 

data suggests that only 11 percent of eligible workers benefit from 

12

the credit in any form, and both studies of workers and of State 

officials tell us the main reasons why. Number one is affordability. 

Many displaced workers cannot afford to pay 35 percent of health 

insurance premiums, which is the amount unsubsidized by HCTC. 

This makes sense. On average, if you are an employee with a paycheck, it costs 15 percent of the premium for coverage that only includes the worker. It is completely unrealistic to imagine that 

someone who loses their job is going to be able to more than double 

the amount they spend on health insurance, and yet, that is exactly what the HCTC program asks of many displaced workers. 

In addition, you have to pay your health insurance premiums in 

full while you are waiting to hear from the IRS of whether you 

qualify for the credit. Lots of displaced workers do not have extra 

money to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of dollars sitting 

around in their family budgets that they can devote for that purpose. Affordability is an issue. 

The nightmarish administrative complexity of the process, Mr. 

Chairman, that you noted is a huge issue. Workers have to apply 

to between three and five agencies to get on the program, and they 

have to frequently shuttle paperwork back and forth between these 

different agencies, so enrollment is a big problem. 

In addition, the coverage that the credit provides often does not 

meet workers’ needs for health care. Under the statute, if you are 

uninsured for 63 days during the several months before you try to 

enroll in an HCTC plan, that plan can completely exclude every 

treatment of preexisting conditions. In other words, everything that 

you know you need to meet your health problems is off the table 

if you have a 63-day coverage gap, but typically, it takes 6 months 

or more between job loss and the start of HCTC advance payment. 

So that means that many workers cannot get the coverage they 

need to meet their needs. 

In addition, there are nine States where every single State-quali- fied plan has an individual deductible of $1,000 or more. For some 

of us, that is not so horrible, but if you are living on a $290-a-weekunemployment-insurance check, that means health care is not affordable to you. Most HCTC-qualified plans flatly exclude or greatly limit such basic services as prescription drugs, maternity care 

and mental health services. So, in many cases, you can get the 

credit, but that does not mean you get the access to health care 

that is the purpose of that credit. 

Now, I am here to tell you these problems can be solved. Similar 

problems have been prevented or solved with other health care programs, and that gives me optimism and hope that workers like Mr. 

Bevard can obtain the kind of help they need with health coverage. 

Here are a few things I would recommend for the committee’s consideration. 

First, increase the percentage of the premium that the credit 

pays to make it more affordable for workers, and for workers who 

have very low incomes who depend just on that unemployment insurance check without spousal income to tide them over, they 

would need additional assistance, so I would recommend a supplemental credit. 

It should be possible to eliminate any need to pay full monthly 

insurance premiums while you are waiting for the IRS to process 

13

your application. That is how Medicaid does it, how SCHIP does it. 

There is no reason why HCTC cannot do that as well. 

In terms of simplifying the administrative process, it seems to 

me Congress could ask the IRS to consult with PBGC and the Department of Labor and say, Come up with one form that a worker 

has to file with one place, and that is enough to start the process. 

There are a few other changes that I recommend in my testimony 

that I would be glad to talk about. 

In terms of coverage, it seems to me, if a worker is uninsured 

because of an HCTC administrative delay that is imposed without 

any choice of the worker, that loss of coverage should not lead to 

the exclusion of preexisting conditions. 

Finally, Congress could ask each State to arrange at least one 

comprehensive plan that would be available for all HCTC beneficiaries in that State, and if that State does not want to come forward and arrange that plan, then a Federal backup option could 

come to the fore, and perhaps DOL could make something available 

comparable to what Federal employees receive. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. McKeon, members of the committee, this is 

a new program, and it is unprecedented in many important ways. 

It is not surprising that there have been problems, but now we 

know the facts. Now we have a chance to fix those problems, and 

I look forward to working with this committee in trying to figure 

out how this program can do a better job of reaching the goal that 

so many of us share. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Dorn follows:]

Prepared Statement of Stan Dorn, J.D.,

Senior Research Associate, the Urban Institute 

Despite important accomplishments, Health Coverage Tax Credits (HCTCs) have 

been generally ineffective in providing health care to displaced workers, for several 

reasons: 

• The credits are used by only 11 percent of eligible workers. 

• The coverage for which credits may be used often leaves out the health care 

that workers need. When job loss is followed by a gap in coverage of 63 days or 

longer, plans can deny treatment of the worker’s known health problems. Moreover, 

many states offer only plans with high deductibles that make care unaffordable for 

workers with limited incomes. Also, such plans often exclude or severely limit such 

basic services as prescription drugs, maternity care, and treatment of mental illness. 

• In some states, HCTC plans increase their premiums substantially for enrollees 

who are older, female, or have health problems. 

• When a displaced worker turns 65 and qualifies for Medicare, the worker’s 

spouse loses HCTC, even if that spouse is too young for Medicare and has no other 

coverage. 

Fortunately, older health coverage programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and the 

State Children’s Health Insurance Program have already prevented or solved similar problems. This suggests that HCTC’s shortcomings can likewise be addressed 

successfully through program changes like the following: 

• Increase the size of HCTCs to pay at least 75 percent of premiums. 

• When beneficiaries have low household income, provide supplemental credits 

that lower worker costs to no more than 10 percent of premiums. For administrative 

feasibility, certify low income based on prior-year tax data, current-year earnings 

data, recent income determinations by public assistance programs, or (as a last resort) applications by HCTC beneficiaries to Social Security offices, which already determine income for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. 

• Eliminate the requirement that workers must enroll in qualified coverage and 

pay full monthly premiums before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will rule on 

their eligibility for HCTC. 

14

• Allow workers to apply by filing one form with one agency. Direct the IRS to 

share information with workers’ authorized representatives who are helping with 

HCTC. • In determining whether workers experience coverage gaps that permit health 

plans to deny treatment of known health problems, disregard periods of time during 

which workers are unable to access HCTC, either because they have not been sent 

notice of potential eligibility or because they are waiting for the IRS to rule on their 

application. • Ask each state to arrange at least one qualified plan offering comprehensive 

benefits to HCTC beneficiaries, without large premium variations based on age, gender, and health status. If a state does not wish to assume this role, the federal government would arrange such coverage in the state. • Continue HCTCs for otherwise eligible younger spouses when displaced workers 

enter Medicare. 

Good afternoon Chairman Miller, Representative McKeon, and distinguished 

members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today 

about health coverage for workers displaced by international trade, with a particular focus on the effectiveness of Health Coverage Tax Credits (HCTC). 

I plan to address three topics: health coverage challenges facing displaced workers; the strengths and weaknesses of the HCTC program in helping these workers 

retain health coverage; and policy options to improve the HCTC program so it can 

be more effective in meeting the health coverage needs of workers who lose their 

jobs because of international trade. 

I have two preliminary comments. First, I would like to thank the Nathan 

Cummings Foundation, the California HealthCare Foundation, and, above all, the 

Commonwealth Fund for generously supporting our several years of research into 

HCTC. Much of my testimony reflects information and insights gleaned through 

these philanthropies’ investment in learning about this important program. 

Second, the views I express today are mine alone and should not be attributed 

to the Urban Institute, any of its sponsors, or any of the above-described funders 

of our prior HCTC research. 

Health coverage challenges facing displaced workers 

For non-elderly Americans, 74 percent of all health coverage is provided through 

employment (Urban Institute and the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured 2006). The loss of employment thus often means a termination of health 

coverage—in fact, two-thirds of all uninsurance begins with job loss (Glied 2001). 

For companies with more than 20 workers, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1986 (COBRA) provides displaced workers and other laid-off 

employees continued access to employer-sponsored insurance. However, the displaced worker must pay for the coverage, typically at a cost of the full premium plus 

a 2 percent administrative fee. Not surprisingly, this cost prevents most laid-off 

workers from taking advantage of COBRA, even if they qualify. In 2006, the cost 

of worker-only COBRA coverage offered by the average employer was $361 a month, 

or 31 percent of average unemployment insurance (UI) payments in 2006.1

Of course, some displaced workers can supplement their UI checks with spousal 

income or enroll in health coverage offered by a spouse’s employer. Other laid-off 

workers are fortunate to have assets they can use to pay for insurance. Still others 

have strong educational backgrounds and quickly find new employment that provides health benefits. But many simply lose health insurance. 

For example, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) survey of displaced workers affected by trade-related layoffs in five sites found that the percentage who were 

either uninsured or who enrolled in HCTC and so may have lacked health coverage 

without assistance ranged from 38 percent at a fine paper and pulp mill in Longview, Washington, to 63 percent at a baked goods manufacturer in Hazelwood, Missouri (Government Accountability Office 2006). An earlier GAO report found that, 

at a knit goods manufacturer in Martinsville County, Virginia, most displaced workers lost their health coverage (General Accounting Office 2001b). A survey of displaced textile mill workers in North Carolina found that 68 percent become uninsured following their layoff (Friday 2003). The precise proportion of displaced workers who lack coverage thus varies from layoff to layoff but appears to be significant 

in many cases. 

The Health Coverage Tax Credit program 

After discussing current law, I will describe some of the program’s accomplishments as well as its shortcomings. 

Current law 

As part of 2002 legislation giving the president fast-track authority over trade 

agreements, lawmakers expanded Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) in various 

ways. One important change was to help displaced workers obtain health coverage. 

15

The Trade Act of 2002 created a Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) that pays 65 

percent of health insurance premiums for eligible individuals enrolled in qualified 

coverage, leaving the worker responsible for the remaining 35 percent. The credits 

are fully refundable, which means that they are paid in full to all who qualify, including those who owe little or no federal income tax. The credits can be advanced 

directly to health insurers when monthly premiums are due, in advance of filing tax 

returns. HCTCs can also be claimed at the end of the year on annual income tax 

forms. 

The following is a general discussion of who qualifies for HCTC and what kind 

of coverage the credits subsidize. 

Eligibility 

Two basic groups qualify for HCTC: workers certified under the Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) program as displaced by international trade, and retirees age 55 

to 64 receiving payments from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). 

To qualify for HCTC as a displaced worker, an individual must either (1) receive 

Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA), (2) meet all eligibility requirements for 

TRAs except exhaustion of unemployment insurance (UI), or (3) receive Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). Dependents of eligible workers and retirees 

also qualify for HCTCs. 

HCTCs are not available to individuals who receive disqualifying coverage. This 

includes Medicare as well as employer-sponsored insurance where the employer 

pays 50 percent or more of the premium. 

Coverage that qualifies for HCTC 

Typically, a health plan qualifies for HCTC if it is either COBRA coverage offered 

by a former employer or a state-qualified health plan. State-qualified plans are not 

subject to any federal requirements for covered benefits or any limitations on varying premium charges based on age, gender, and health status. Such plans may not, 

however, participate in either Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance 

Program (SCHIP). The HCTC statute also provides that a non-group plan can be 

qualified, regardless of state policy decisions, if the worker received the coverage 

during at least the last 30 days of employment. 

The extent of state-qualified health plans’ ability to vary premium charges based 

on individual risk factors was the subject of controversy soon after enactment of the 

Trade Act. Some in Congress argued that non-group coverage that varied premiums 

based on each enrollee’s individual health history could constitute qualified coverage 

only for workers who purchased such plans during at least the last 30 days of employment, given the statute’s specific language addressing non-group coverage. However, the Bush Administration ruled that any form of private health coverage arranged by a state can constitute a qualified plan, so long as the coverage meets certain consumer protection requirements of the Trade Act. 

These protections apply to individuals who, when they seek to enroll in an HCTC 

plan, have had at least three months of continuous coverage, without any insurance 

gaps that exceed 62 days. For such individuals, a state-qualified plan must guarantee issuance of coverage, may not exclude coverage of preexisting conditions, and 

may not charge more or provide less than to similarly situated enrollees not receiving HCTCs. 

Program accomplishments 

Several accomplishments are important to note: 

• The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of the Treasury have 

proved effective and nimble in surmounting a number of policy challenges, including 

the establishment of unprecedented advance payment mechanisms less than 12 

months after enactment of HCTC legislation (Dorn and Kutyla 2004). 

• Unlike the country’s only previous health insurance tax credit (the so-called 

‘‘Bentsen child health tax credits,’’ which operated briefly during the early 1990s 

and were repealed in 1993), HCTC implementation has not been accompanied by 

reports of widespread marketing fraud (House Ways and Means Committee 1993). 

• Consumer protection requirements in the HCTC statute have not stood in the 

way of significant health plan participation. As of March 2006, 87 percent of potentially eligible individuals lived in the 40 states with participating state-qualified insurers, which collectively offered 280 state-qualified options (Pervez and Dorn 2006). 

• In some cases, states and unions have enrolled more than half of potentially eligible workers by providing proactive, intensive application assistance (Dorn 2006). 

Program shortcomings 

Unfortunately, HCTC has experienced serious problems reaching its goals. I will 

discuss four of these problems: the failure of the credit to reach most eligible workers; the failure of some HCTC plans to cover necessary health care; some health 

plans’ substantial increase in premium charges to workers who are older, female, 

or in poor health; and the termination of HCTC coverage for younger spouses when 

16

the displaced worker turns 65 and qualifies for Medicare. A fifth major problem—

namely, high administrative costs for HCTC advance payment—will be the subject 

of a new report the Commonwealth Fund plans to release later this week. 

HCTC reaches a small percentage of eligible workers 

The best-known problem with HCTC is that very few eligible workers use the benefit. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), during 2004 (the 

most recent year for which full data are available) only 11 percent of eligible individuals used the credit either in its advanceable form or through claiming the credit 

on end-of-year returns.2 From 2005 through 2007, the total volume of subsidies provided by HCTC averaged only 26 percent of the level Congress expected in passing 

the Trade Act, as reflected in Joint Tax Committee projections (Dorn 2006). 

Several surveys of workers and state officials paint a consistent picture of the reasons for such low take-up. First, 35 percent of the premium is more than most displaced workers can afford. Workers earning a paycheck contribute an average of 15 

percent of premium costs for worker-only coverage (Kaiser Family Foundation 2006). 

It is simply not realistic to expect that someone who loses their job and falls on hard 

times will be able to more than double their spending on health insurance. 

Second, to obtain a determination of eligibility for HCTC, individuals must pay 

premiums in full, without subsidy, before advance payment begins. A number of 

states operate so-called ‘‘gap filler’’ programs that use Department of Labor (DOL) 

grants to pay 65 percent of health insurance premiums while workers are waiting 

for advance payment to start. But in other states, laid-off workers are required to 

‘‘front’’ full monthly health insurance premiums in hopes of receiving an HCTC refund paying 65 percent of such costs after the workers file their tax forms at the 

end of the year. Few displaced workers have enough excess income in household 

budgets to make such payments. 

Third, the application process for HCTC is quite complex. Workers must file applications with between three and five public and private entities, often being required 

to convey paperwork from one such entity to another. In addition, the underlying 

TAA program upon which HCTC eligibility is based has considerable complexity, 

with policy goals that have little to do with health coverage. Individuals can be denied TRAs for such reasons as an inability to obtain a waiver of ordinarily applicable job training requirements, the receipt of certain pension payments, etc. Whether 

or not such factors affect the justification for TRA receipt, they do not reduce workers’ need for help purchasing health coverage, yet they can terminate HCTC eligibility. 

State-qualified insurance often fails to cover necessary health care 

Limited coverage offered by state-qualified plans is both the final, major cause of 

low take-up 3 and a serious problem in its own right. Coverage that workers view 

as not meeting their needs is obviously less likely to be purchased, even with a subsidy. Moreover, limits on available coverage can prevent the HCTC program from 

meeting its fundamental objective of providing displaced workers with affordable access to essential health care. 

There are several reasons why state-qualified coverage may not meet workers’ 

health care needs. First, if workers experience a 63-day gap in coverage between job 

loss and enrollment in a state-qualified HCTC plan, the plan can exclude all coverage of preexisting conditions. The vast majority of state-qualified plans do impose 

such restrictions, according to a 2003 survey (Dorn and Kutyla 2004). 

Gaps in coverage of 63 days or longer can easily arise, through no fault of the 

worker. According to OMB, after job loss ‘‘it can take as long as six months before 

[the names of potentially eligible workers] reach the IRS,’’ and after that information reaches the IRS and the IRS mails out an enrollment kit, the median interval 

until the start of advance payment is 99 days (Office of Management and Budget 

2006). 

To be clear, with some layoffs, 63-day gaps in coverage have been averted. These 

have been large layoffs, such as the bankruptcy of steel mills and the closure of textile mills, that devastated communities and received the intense attention of state 

officials and the media. In such cases, public and private sector leaders have sometimes cooperated to expedite the processing of applications and avoid coverage gaps. 

But such extraordinary efforts are the exception, not the rule. With more typical 

layoffs, coverage gaps often exceed 62 days, which means that HCTC-qualified plans 

arranged by the state can exclude the very health care that workers know is needed 

to treat their medical problems.4

Second, state-qualified plans offer limited benefits in many states. In 12 of 40 

states offering state-qualified insurance in March 2006, every plan had an individual deductible of $1,000 or more (Pervez and Dorn 2006). In 11 of 15 states surveyed in 2003, every state-qualified plan either excluded or imposed severe limits 

on at least two of the following: maternity care, mental health care, prescription 

17

drugs, or preventive care (Dorn and Kutyla 2004). Workers do not receive affordable 

access to necessary care under these plans if they cannot afford $1,000 out of pocket 

before coverage begins or if they need the particular services that available coverage 

excludes. 

Premiums can vary greatly based on age, gender, and health status 

Insurers offering medically underwritten, nongroup coverage can charge more for 

enrollees who are expected to generate large health care costs. As of March 2006, 

such plans were offered as state-qualified insurance in 9 out of the 40 states with 

state-qualified plans. In these nine states, premiums have sometimes increased substantially based on age, gender, and health history. For example, in June 2004, 

HCTC beneficiaries’ 35 percent premium share for average state-qualified coverage 

in North Carolina was $357 a year for a healthy 25-year-old man, compared with 

$4,066 for a 55-year-old woman in the highest risk tier (Dorn, Alteras, and Meyer 

2005). 

This raises questions of fairness. With medical underwriting, the very people who 

most need coverage are least able to afford it, based on individual characteristics 

that are outside their control. 

Basing premiums on individual risk-assessment through medical underwriting 

also raises issues of effectiveness, particularly when displaced workers are over age 

40. Medical underwriting for displaced textile mill workers in North Carolina, for 

example, had a dramatic effect undermining take-up. Among the workers quoted 

higher premium rates after the underwriting process, fully 69 percent dropped out 

of the program at that point. If these individuals had instead completed their enrollment, more than 3,900 additional North Carolinians would have received coverage, 

increasing total national HCTC enrollment by 42 percent (Dorn, Alteras, and Meyer 

2005). 

Spouses lose health coverage when eligible workers turn 65

The spouse of a displaced worker or PBGC retiree receives HCTC only while the 

worker or retiree qualifies for HCTC. If the trade-impacted worker turns 65 and enrolls in Medicare, HCTC eligibility ends for both the worker and the spouse. This 

makes some sense for the worker, since the worker is receiving Medicare. However, 

if the spouse is under age 65, Medicare does not provide coverage. Such a spouse 

may have lost health insurance along with the worker when the layoff occurred. 

Without HCTC, the spouse may wind up completely uninsured until age 65, potentially suffering seriously impaired access to essential health care. This is a structural gap in HCTC’s mechanisms for preventing trade-related job loss from terminating health coverage. 

Policy options to increase HCTC’s effectiveness in helping displaced workers 

These problems can be overcome through intelligent redesign of HCTC. Similar 

problems have been prevented or solved with older health subsidy programs, such 

as Medicaid, Medicare, and SCHIP. This track record provides a measure of confidence that such challenges can likewise be overcome with HCTC. 

Increase the number of displaced workers who receive HCTCs 

Three policy changes directed at improving affordability and making the application process more user-friendly would go a long way toward increasing the number 

of displaced workers who receive help. 

1. Raise the percentage of premium paid by HCTC 

Based on input from health plan staff in states with extensive populations of displaced workers, I would recommend at least 75 percent of premiums as the basic 

subsidy level for HCTC, and potentially more.5 Essential to widespread participation 

is lowering worker costs to amounts that would not require forgoing or postponing 

other basic household needs. Medicaid and SCHIP programs have repeatedly found 

that lowering required premium payments can dramatically increase consumer participation (Dorn, Varon, and Pervez 2005). 

In addition, I would recommend a supplemental credit for eligible workers with 

low incomes, such as income at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.6

For low-income workers, a supplemental credit, in combination with the base credit, 

could pay something like 90 percent of the premium. 

Such a means-tested supplemental credit would face several administrative challenges. First, the IRS is ill-equipped to do ‘‘real time’’ means-testing for a supplemental, income-based credit. The IRS is beautifully set up to determine prior year 

income, not contemporaneous income. 

Second, HCTC is already complex. Asking workers to take additional steps to obtain supplemental credits necessarily means that some will not complete the process 

and obtain those credits. 

Given these challenges, if a means-tested supplement is provided, the burden of 

the application process on workers must be minimized, and the IRS must not be 

18

asked to do contemporaneous income determinations. The following is one approach 

to reaching those goals: • The IRS could automatically provide supplemental credits when data-matching 

shows that HCTC-eligible individuals have income that falls below specified levels. 

Such data-matching would tap into income information contained in prior-year tax 

records and current-year earnings records in the national New Hires Database administered by the Department of Health and Human Services for purposes of child 

support enforcement. The latter database includes both quarterly earnings information and new hires information from every state, including public and private sector 

employers.7

• The IRS could also provide supplemental credits to any HCTC-eligible individuals who show that they have already been found to have low household income by 

means-tested public assistance programs like Food Stamps, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), etc. • Only if these two methods failed to establish eligibility for supplemental credits 

would a worker need to submit an application showing low income. As mentioned 

above, however, the IRS would not be the right place to process such an application. 

Instead, workers could submit these applications to Social Security offices, which already determine current income levels in deciding eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). 

With every pathway to demonstrating low income that goes beyond prior tax 

records, another agency’s certification of low income would establish eligibility for 

the supplemental credit, without any independent means-testing by the IRS. Other 

elements of HCTC eligibility already are based on similar certification by agencies 

outside the IRS. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 7527(d), status as a 

TAA-eligible individual or a PBGC recipient is demonstrated by certification from 

state workforce agencies (SWAs) or PBGC, respectively. The IRS independently investigates other elements of HCTC eligibility, but not receipt of TAA or PBGC benefits. Congress could take a similar approach to the issue of affordability and use 

other agencies’ certification of low income to direct enhanced subsidies to the lowestincome displaced workers without asking the IRS to assume any responsibility for 

‘‘real time’’ income determinations. 

2. Eliminate the requirement that workers must pay premiums in full while waiting for advance payment to start 

Displaced workers cannot realistically be required to pay premiums in full while 

the IRS is determining their eligibility for advance payment. To eliminate this requirement, eligibility determination could be separated from enrollment in qualified 

coverage. Currently, the IRS makes one finding in ruling on an application for advance payment, determining simultaneously whether the individual is (a) eligible 

and (b) enrolled in qualified coverage. The IRS denies advance payment if the worker is either ineligible or not enrolled in a qualified plan. This requires enrollment 

in a qualified plan, hence payment of premiums, before advance payment can begin. 

Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP take a very different approach. SCHIP, for example, first determines that a child is eligible. Only then is the child enrolled in a 

health plan offered by the state, and the family makes payments based on the 

child’s eligibility for subsidies. The family is never required to purchase unsubsidized coverage. 

HCTC could be restructured along similar lines. The IRS could make eligibility 

determinations for workers who are not yet enrolled in qualified plans. To avoid unnecessary administrative costs, such determinations could be limited to individuals 

who have applied to enroll in a qualified plan and agreed to pay their share of premiums after HCTC advance payment begins. Once the IRS finds the worker eligible 

and authorizes the start of advance payment, the worker would begin making premium contributions for qualified coverage, contributions that are reduced based on 

the subsidy provided by HCTC.8 (As noted below, this would need to be accompanied 

by other policy changes that prevent the exclusion of preexisting conditions based 

on coverage gaps while workers are waiting for advance payment to start.) 

3. Simplify the application process and let workers receive effective help navigating the system 

Three policy changes would make the application process more workable for displaced workers. First, Congress could direct the IRS to develop, in consultation with 

DOL, PBGC, and representatives of health plans, a single, simple form that workers 

could use to apply for HCTC advance payment by filing the form with one public 

or private agency. 

Second, Congress could direct the IRS to permit taxpayers to authorize state officials, health plan officials, union officials, or others to act on their behalf and receive 

otherwise confidential information. Such authorization would be limited to the purpose of establishing HCTC eligibility, commencement and continuation of advance 

19

payment, and receipt of health coverage. In the past, the IRS’s laudable commitment to preserving taxpayer privacy has been taken to levels that interfere with the 

receipt of health coverage. For example, officials in state workforce agencies have 

been unable to diagnose the causes of delayed initiation of advance payment because 

IRS staff refused to share information about workers’ applications. To obtain information needed to provide coverage, state officials sometimes have had to bring 

workers into state offices, have workers call IRS staff, ask workers to relay state 

officials’ questions to the IRS, ask workers to relay IRS answers to the state officials, and repeat the process until state officials understood the source of the problem sufficiently to devise a solution. 

For a brief period, the IRS addressed this issue by experimenting with a consent 

report pilot project operated through the HCTC Customer Contact Center. Callers 

to the HCTC toll-free line were asked if their contact information could be shared 

with state officials to see if the callers might qualify for extra help. In Virginia, 83 

percent of callers consented to such information-sharing. State workforce agency 

staff then contacted these applicants and shepherded them through the process. 

More than 90 percent of these displaced workers ultimately enrolled in HCTC (Dorn 

2006). 

Regrettably, this promising experiment was terminated after several months. Although taxpayer privacy was never breached, generalized worries about confidentiality brought the pilot project to an end. Clear congressional direction that asks 

the IRS to provide HCTC-related confidentiality waivers would be important in 

overcoming such worries and permitting displaced workers to get the help they need 

to navigate through even a simplified HCTC application process. 

Third, the relationship between TAA eligibility and HCTC eligibility could be simplified. Instead of making HCTC eligibility depend on receipt of ATAA, TRAs, or eligibility for TRAs but for receipt of UI, HCTCs could go to workers who are certified 

as displaced because of trade and who either qualify for any component of TAA assistance or would qualify for such a component but for their receipt of UI. 

Give HCTC beneficiaries access to health insurance that covers the health care 

they need, without large premium variations based on age, gender, or health status 

Two policy changes would reach this goal. 

1. Give each beneficiary access to at least one comprehensive plan with little or 

no premium variation based on individual characteristics 

Congress could adjust the HCTC statute to ensure that each HCTC-eligible worker has access to at least one comprehensive health plan that does not vary premiums significantly based on age, gender, and health risk. Comprehensiveness could 

be defined in terms of actuarial value, an approach the SCHIP program has successfully used to preserve state and private-sector flexibility while ensuring that subsidy 

recipients can obtain the kind of comprehensive coverage that employers typically 

offer their workers. For the designated comprehensive plan, premium variation 

based on individual characteristics could either be limited or forbidden entirely. 

Under this approach, each state could choose either (a) to offer HCTC beneficiaries at least one state-qualified comprehensive plan without significant premium variation or (b) to have a federal agency arrange for such a plan to be offered 

to state residents. If a state failed to arrange such coverage by a certain date, a 

federally arranged plan would become available to HCTC beneficiaries living in the 

state. For example, HCTC beneficiaries in such a state could be offered one of the 

national fee-for-service plans that participates in the Federal Employees Health 

Benefits Program (FEHBP). To protect current FEHBP enrollees, HCTC beneficiaries would need to have their own group rate, separate from the rate charged 

for federal employees and retirees. 

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) took a 

similar approach to federal—state responsibilities. HIPAA established statutory 

goals for ensuring that, at the end of COBRA coverage, people could transition satisfactorily into individual coverage. States were given three basic choices for reaching 

those goals: 

(1) pass laws congruent with or stronger than the federal floor specified in HIPAA 

and enforce them using state agencies; (2) create an acceptable alternative mechanism for eligible persons in the individual market and enforce it with state agencies; 

or (3) decline to pass new laws or strengthen existing laws and leave enforcement 

of the HIPAA provisions directly to the federal government. (Nichols and Blumberg 

1998) 

By 2000, just four years after enactment of HIPAA, only three states left it to the 

federal government to set and enforce group-to-individual conversion rules; nine 

states and the District of Columbia adopted or supplemented the federal rules and 

assumed enforcement responsibility; and 38 states were operating full-blown ‘‘alternative mechanisms’’ for achieving HIPAA’s statutory goals (Pollitz et al. 2000). By 

20

2001, only one state remained that let the federal government enforce group-to-individual conversion rules (General Accounting Office 2001a). 

This history suggests that, given the opportunity, the vast majority of states will 

develop their own methods to reach federally specified goals. However, the availability of a ‘‘federal fallback’’ in the case of HIPAA ensured that vulnerable beneficiaries did not suffer harm while states were coming up to speed. A similar approach could be taken to ensuring HCTC beneficiaries access to comprehensive coverage, without large premium variation based on factors like age, gender, and 

health status. 

If policymakers want to give states an additional incentive to arrange their own 

comprehensive coverage rather than leave this task to a federal agency, HHS could 

provide grants to cover state administrative costs in establishing such arrangements. Under this approach, if the federal government assumed the responsibility 

of arranging comprehensive coverage for HCTC beneficiaries in a particular state, 

the state’s grant would revert to the federal Treasury. Many states would be loath 

to surrender both authority and dollars to the federal government. 

2. When coverage gaps result from factors outside the beneficiary’s control, disregard those gaps in determining whether consumer protections apply 

Under some circumstances, it is important to give health plans the ability to take 

such steps as excluding coverage of preexisting conditions. Those measures prevent 

consumers from waiting to develop health problems before they seek coverage. 

Careful policy design can avoid that untoward result while dramatically increasing the number of displaced workers who use their HCTCs to obtain health insurance that covers treatment of known health problems. In determining whether a 

worker had continuous health coverage, periods of time could be disregarded when 

the worker was uninsured because factors entirely outside the worker’s control delayed the receipt of subsidies. This disregard would encompass two intervals: • The period between the loss of employer-subsidized health coverage and notice 

to the worker of potential HCTC eligibility; and • The period between the worker’s application for HCTC advance payment and 

the start of advance payment. 

The first period could be defined as ending a certain number of days after the IRS 

mails the worker an HCTC Program Kit. The second period could be defined as 

starting when a worker has done the following: • Applied for HCTC advance payment; • Applied to enroll in qualified coverage; and • Made a binding commitment to pay the worker’s share of premiums for such 

qualified coverage after HCTC advance payment begins. 

This approach seeks to be fair both to the worker and to the health plan. While 

the worker is without any available subsidies for health coverage, this policy would 

not unrealistically insist on full payment of health insurance premiums as a condition of later access to health insurance that meets the worker’ known needs for 

health care. At the same time, this statutory change would effectively prohibit workers from intentionally delaying HCTC enrollment until they get sick and need care.9

Permit younger spouses to retain HCTC after the displaced worker qualifies for 

Medicare 

Congress could modify HCTC eligibility so that, when a TAA- or PBGC-eligible 

worker turns 65 and qualifies for Medicare, HCTC continues to be cover family 

members who would otherwise remain eligible for the credit. 

Conclusion 

By and large, Health Coverage Tax Credits have been ineffective in providing displaced workers with affordable access to health coverage and essential health care. 

These problems resulted from design choices in the structure of the credit, choices 

that Congress could revisit. Subsidy levels could increase to make coverage affordable. Displaced workers could be spared the need to pay premiums in full while 

waiting for an eligibility determination. The application process could be simplified 

and authorized representatives empowered to help workers navigate the system and 

enroll in qualified coverage. Qualified health insurance could include at least one 

comprehensive coverage option in each state, without large premium increases for 

enrollees who are older, sicker, or female. And as long as workers are not dilatory 

in applying for subsidies and enrolling in coverage, health insurance could cover the 

services that workers need, without excluding coverage of preexisting conditions. 

HCTCs represent the country’s first attempt to cover the uninsured by using tax 

credits that are paid monthly to insurers when premiums are due, in advance of 

filing annual tax returns.10 It is not surprising that this novel approach has encountered problems. However, now that the country has accumulated several years of 

experience with HCTCs, Congress has an opportunity to revise the program so it 

can do a much better job of accomplishing its basic objective, which surely everyone 

21

on this Committee supports—namely, for those workers who are harmed, rather 

than helped, by trade liberalization, ensuring that the Trade Adjustment Assistance 

program offers affordable health insurance that provides good access to essential 

health care. 

I would be delighted to answer any questions from the Committee. 

REFERENCES

Dorn, Stan. 2006. ‘‘Take-Up of Health Coverage Tax Credits: Examples of Success 

in a Program With Low Enrollment.’’ Prepared for the Commonwealth Fund. 

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Dorn, Stan, and Todd Kutyla. 2004. ‘‘Health Coverage Tax Credits under the Trade 

Act of 2002: A Preliminary Analysis of Program Operations.’’ Prepared for the 

Commonwealth Fund and the Nathan Cummings Foundation. Washington, DC: 

Economic and Social Research Institute. 

Dorn, Stan, Tanya Alteras, Jack A. Meyer. 2005. ‘‘Early Implementation of the 

Health Coverage Tax Credit in Maryland, Michigan, and North Carolina: A 

Case Study Summary.’’ Prepared for the Commonwealth Fund and the Nathan 

Cummings Foundation. Washington, DC: Economic and Social Research Institute. 

Dorn, Stan, Janet Varon, and Fouad Pervez. 2005. ‘‘Limited Take-Up of Health Coverage Tax Credits: A Challenge to Future Tax Credit Design.’’ Prepared for the 

Commonwealth Fund. Washington, DC, and Seattle, WA: Economic and Social 

Research Institute and Northwest Health Law Advocates. 

Friday, Paul C. 2003. ‘‘Long-Term Needs Assessment, Pillowtex Employees.’’ Prepared for the Cabarrus County Community Development Corp. and the City of 

Kannapolis. Concord, NC: Research and Training Specialists, Inc. 

Glied, Sherry A. 2001. ‘‘Challenges and Options for Increasing the Number of Americans with Health Insurance.’’ Inquiry 38(2): 90—105. 

General Accounting Office. 2001a. ‘‘Federal Enforcement of Health Insurance Standards.’’ GAO-01-652R. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. 

———. 2001b. ‘‘Trade Adjustment Assistance: Experiences of Six Trade-Impacted 

Communities.’’ GAO-01-838. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. 

Government Accountability Office. 2006. ‘‘Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received Services, but Better Outreach Needed on New Benefits.’’ GAO-06-43. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office. 

House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight. ‘‘Report on Marketing Abuse and Administrative Problems Involving the Health Insurance 

Component of the Earned Income Tax Credit.’’ WMCP: 103-14, 103rd Cong., 1st 

Sess., June 1, 1993. Washington, DC: House Ways and Means Committee. 

Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust. 2006. 

‘‘2006 Employer Health Benefits Survey.’’ Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. 

Nichols, Len, and Linda Blumberg. 1998. ‘‘A Different Kind of ’New Federalism’? 

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.’’ Health Affairs (May/June). 

Office of Management and Budget. 2006. ‘‘Detailed Information on the Internal Revenue Service Health Care Tax Credit Administration Assessment.’’ Washington, 

DC: Office of Management and Budget. 

Pervez, Fouad, and Stan Dorn. 2006. ‘‘Health Plan Options under the Health Coverage Tax Credit Program.’’ Prepared for the Commonwealth Fund. Washington, DC: Health Management Associates and the Urban Institute. 

Pollitz, Karen, Nicole Tapay, Elizabeth Hadley, and Jalena Specht. 2000. ‘‘Early Experience with ’New Federalism’ in Health Insurance Regulation.’’ Health Affairs 

(July/August). 

The Urban Institute and the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. 

2006. ‘‘Health Insurance Coverage in America: 2005 Data Update.’’ Washington, 

DC: The Urban Institute. 

Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. 2006. 

‘‘Monthly Program and Financial Data, U.S. Total for 2006.’’ Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Labor. 

ENDNOTES

1The cost of COBRA coverage was calculated by the author from Kaiser Family Foundation 

and the Health Research and Educational Trust (2006); the percentage of UI payments was calculated from Employment and Training Administration (2007). 2 Calculated by the author from Office of Management and Budget (2006). 

22

3 Another important factor involves outreach. Workers losing their jobs are assimilating both 

the emotional impact of job loss and a tremendous amount of incoming information about coping 

strategies, including but going far beyond available government benefits. It is very easy for messages about HCTC to get lost in the midst of such a storm (Government Accountability Office 

2006). Coping with that kind of outreach environment would require the very best, state-of-theart outreach and enrollment strategies, which have not yet been applied to HCTC (Dorn, Varon, 

and Pervez 2005). 4 Another implication of these coverage gaps is that COBRA plans, which typically are quite 

comprehensive, can become unavailable. Ordinarily, a laid-off worker has an election period of 

60 days, following job loss or notice of available COBRA coverage (whichever occurs last), in 

which to enroll in the employer plan. However, the HCTC statute creates a second COBRA election period. This period lasts for 60 days after a displaced worker first receives TRA or would 

qualify for TRA but for the worker’s receipt of UI. However, this second COBRA election period 

cannot last beyond six months following the worker’s loss of health coverage. Without intensive 

effort, more than six months can easily pass between job loss and first receipt of HCTC, denying 

the displaced worker access to HCTC-funded COBRA. 5For example, if the underlying premium for comprehensive coverage is sufficiently high, the 

HCTC subsidy may need to exceed 75 percent for the remaining cost to be affordable for most 

displaced workers. 6 In 2007, the federal poverty level is $17,170 for a family of three; $20,650 for a family of 

four; etc. 7Several different approaches to analyzing this data are possible. For example, eligibility for 

supplemental credits could be granted based on prior-year income. That approach is currently 

taken for purposes of low-income subsidy eligibility under Medicare Part D, where subsidies are 

provided automatically based on prior-year receipt of Medicaid or SSI. The Bush administration’s tax credit proposals for uninsured workers without access to employer-sponsored insurance likewise would have means-tested the amount of the credit based on prior-year income. 

If policymakers take this approach to HCTC supplements, it would be important to leave room 

for displaced workers to show that their circumstances have worsened since the previous year. 

For that purpose, access to the National New Hires Database could be important, along with 

the other enrollment mechanisms I discuss. 8Some have suggested another approach. Under this alternative, the IRS would rapidly refund 65 percent of full premium payments workers make before the start of advance payment. 

While useful for some workers, this would not solve the problem for the workers who most need 

help. HCTC-eligible displaced workers would still be asked to come up with the money needed 

for full premium payments—money that many workers simply do not have in their household 

budgets, even for a few months. 9These periods could also apply to the second COBRA election period, specified in the HCTC 

statute. That is, in determining whether six months have passed since job loss and whether 60 

days have passed since the worker first qualified for TAA, the statute could be revised to disregard the periods of time (a) between the worker’s job loss and notice of potential HCTC eligibility and (b) between the worker’s application for and receipt of advance payment. As with preexisting condition exclusions, this approach would require workers to move forward with dispatch but would not punish them for delays beyond their control. 10The so-called ‘‘Bentsen child health tax credit,’’ mentioned above, represented the only previous attempt to use federal income tax credits of any kind to subsidize coverage for the uninsured. This earlier health insurance tax credit was not advanceable during the year—a critically 

important feature of HCTC. Instead, it was claimed at the end of the year, as a supplement 

to the Earned Income Tax Credit. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Herman. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE G. HERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT 

Mr. HERMAN. Chairman Miller and members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to address this important topic. This 

is a timely hearing because it is increasingly clear that the benefits 

of trade are not shared equally while the downside of trade is having a corrosive impact on the hard-fought gains of America’s working families. 

For the past 2 years, the National Employment Law Practice, or 

‘‘NELP’’ as we are known, has been working with dislocated manufacturing workers affected by the restructuring of the auto industry, concentrating especially in the States of Indiana, Michigan and 

Ohio. Our Midwest economic dislocation initiative involves working 

with the TAA program at the ground level. One of the products 

that we produced is this manual that assists unions and commuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:41 Oct 03, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-15\34138.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
23

nity groups in applying for the benefits associated with TAA. Based 

upon our firsthand experience with TAA, NELP has a number of 

suggestions about the priorities for Congress in reauthorizing TAA. 

In this testimony, I will briefly outline four major priorities regarding TAA reauthorization. I will then briefly address two issues 

that are intertwined with the discussions of TAA reauthorization: 

first, why training and education is an important option for some 

dislocated workers; and, two, why wage insurance is not a better 

option to address the impact of globalization on workers. 

TAA reauthorization issue number one: TAA certification rules 

currently exclude many workers impacted by trade. Therefore, we 

recommend a move toward a universal globalization adjustment assistance program by expanding certification rules for TAA eligibility. Specific recommendations include: shift dislocated worker 

programs toward a model that provides income support and health 

care by expanding TAA eligibility to protect more manufacturing 

workers while adding coverage for service workers and public employees; start a basic income support program for dislocated workers under TAA that is not tied to participation and training while 

providing intensive job search assistance and reemployment services; develop criteria to establish regional or industry-wide certification for workers impacted by globalization; develop a new and reliable source of funding supporting significantly increased expenditures for globalization assistance. 

Issue number two: A high priority for reform in 2007’s reauthorization is to ensure that adequate TAA training funds are available 

to train all certified workers who wish to participate in meaningful 

retraining programs. TAA training funds are a capped entitlement 

while Trade Readjustment Allowances, TRA—the income support—

is an entitlement under current law. We suggest the following solutions. 

Congress should make TAA training an uncapped entitlement. If 

overall limitations in TAA training funds are kept in place, ensure 

that added training funds flow automatically when new certifications are made. In addition, requiring the distribution of 95 percent of the reserve training funds by no later than July 1st each 

year is recommended to permit timely enrollment in fall semesters. 

Expanding eligibility to service workers without addressing the cap 

on TAA training funds will simply pit newly eligible service workers and public employees against manufacturing workers in a battle for scarce TAA training funds. 

The other reauthorization area is the health coverage tax credit. 

The biggest obstacle to HCTC eligibility is affordability. We address some specific recommendations in the written testimony that 

I will not go into at this point. 

Similarly with administration, this is a complicated program, as 

was discussed in the opening statements, and there needs to be 

some significant reforms to streamline and to make it more accessible. We have a number of recommendations in our written testimony, but we do encourage Congress to talk to the system operators, the program operators, the dislocated workers themselves who 

have a direct experience with the complexities of the program and 

address those. 

24

In terms of the debate or the conversation around training, ‘‘is 

it useful for dislocated workers,’’ claims by critics that publically 

funded training is not affected are no truer than competing claims 

that training and education are an overall answer to the decline of 

middle class jobs. Both are unwarranted over-generalizations. In 

our view, job training and education results are directly related to 

the investment made and the time spent in training. Given the 

special employment challenges facing dislocated workers, it is helpful to look at those programs that have provided more long-term 

investment in training and income support. 

For example, Washington State provides dislocated workers with 

extended unemployment benefits and State-approved training. By 

the third quarter after leaving this program, 72 percent of the more 

than 8,000 participants were employed, making an average of 93 

percent of the predislocation wages. Other programs that are promising, that provide promising outcomes, include the California Employment and Training Fund and the Wisconsin Regional Training 

Partnership. 

In terms of wage insurance, we believe it is a flawed approach 

to addressing the needs of dislocated workers. A number of Members of Congress have proposed the development of wage insurance 

as a potential solution for the ills facing dislocated workers. We appreciate the concern but believe that this is not a strategy that is 

a viable solution for many dislocated workers. 

Rather than encouraging workers to forego their long-term interest for a wage insurance job, Congress should focus on more meaningful solutions that create genuine economic security and more 

family-friendly, sustainable jobs in our economy. We have seen this 

work in the States which have created a subsidized health insurance for the unemployed that runs alongside the UI program and 

self-sustaining home protection funds that provide no-interest loans 

for laid-off families so they can cover their mortgage payments in 

the areas of high unemployment. We also believe there are far too 

many questions regarding wage insurance. 

First, will wage insurance promote downward mobility for the 

Nation’s most vulnerable workers? Wage insurance jobs are also 

likely to provide no health insurance and other crucial benefits. 

Therefore, wage insurance amounts to a subsidy to those employers 

and the economy to provide jobs with the worst wages and benefits. 

We are also not aware of any empirical evidence that wage insurance jobs will provide transferrable skills or meaningful training. 

In fact, there is strong empirical evidence that lower-wage jobs require less skill and, therefore, provide little or no on-the-job training of real value let alone transferable skills. These are just some 

of the questions that need to be addressed in terms of the wage insurance proposals. 

We thank the committee for having this hearing, and we are, of 

course, available to follow up with any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Herman follows:]

Prepared Statement of Bruce G. Herman,

Executive Director, National Employment Law Project 

Introduction 

Chairman Miller and members of the Committee, my name is Bruce G. Herman, 

Executive Director of National Employment Law Project (NELP). NELP is a policy 

25

and legal organization focused on issues impacting low wage and jobless workers. 

NELP is pleased to accept the Committee’s invitation to testify today on the subject 

of the effectiveness of programs in helping workers impacted by international trade. 

For the last two years, NELP has been working with dislocated manufacturing 

workers affected by the restructuring of the automotive industry, concentrating especially in the states of Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. Our Midwest economic dislocation initiative involves working with the TAA program at the ground level. We 

are currently advocating for better implementation of the program with state and 

local agencies, advising interested parties on filing petitions for certification of eligibility for TAA, and assisting with post-certification rights and responsibilities presentations for certified workers, local unions, and community groups. In addition to 

my work at NELP, I have developed years of experience dealing with trade-impacted workers and creating ‘‘high road’’ economic development partnerships, first 

as the President of the Garment Industry Development Corporation in New York 

City, then as Executive Director of the AFL-CIO Working for American Institute in 

Washington, D.C. 

Trade Adjustment Assistance Overview 

Rising imports and outsourcing now expose much of our country’s labor market 

to the downsides of trade. While U.S. manufacturing has borne the brunt of job 

losses due to trade for decades, financial, service and public sector jobs now face 

competitive pressures due to movement of these jobs offshore. With widespread public concern focused on job losses related to trade, globalization and its adherents are 

on the defensive. As in past periods when public concern about the negative impact 

of trade was high, Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) is once again garnering attention from policy makers and the media. In addition, TAA is currently up for reauthorization in this Congress. This moment offers an opportunity to make TAA a 

program that provides more extensive and more effective readjustment assistance 

for jobless workers out of work as a result of adverse impacts of national trade policy. 

In the course of its work around economic dislocation, NELP has interacted with 

federal, state, and local officials in many states that are charged with making TAA 

work in the real world. As a result, we have gained extensive knowledge of the nuts 

and bolts of TAA implementation as well as bigger issues relating to TAA reauthorization. Based upon our first-hand experience with TAA as well as the input of other 

stakeholders, NELP has a number of suggestions about priorities for Congress in 

reauthorizing TAA. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, TAA for workers provides retraining, income support, and job search and relocation assistance to jobless individuals separated from 

work as a result of specified trade impacts. For those that can get certified as eligible, TAA, in some important ways, represents one of the very best programs for income support and retraining for jobless workers in the U.S. 

Both opponents and supporters of free trade and globalization have promoted TAA 

as a promise to the victims of U.S. trade policy. In reality, TAA has never lived up 

to its promised role as a comprehensive vehicle for readjustment of those losing 

work as a result of trade. Instead, TAA has most often operated in the shadows of 

overall training policy. Limited TAA eligibility rules prevent certification of many 

manufacturing workers who cannot prove their layoffs are directly related to trade 

impacts. Crabbed administration by both the Labor Department and in some states 

impedes those certified for TAA from taking full advantage of its best features. As 

a result, only about 50,000 to 70,000 workers actually participate in TAA retraining 

or other services in any particular year, a tiny portion of those affected by international trade and only a modest proportion of those with job losses certified as 

trade-impacted by the government each year. 

The limited nature of TAA corresponds to its limited budget. In the last few years, 

TAA spending is $1 billion or less a year, with $220 million appropriated for TAA 

training and about $700 million spent on income support for certified workers in FY 

2006. In comparison, TAA assisted over 500,000 individuals in 1980 when TAA 

spending was $1.6 billion (which would be $3.9 billion in 2007 dollars). A major priority is to increase funding for TAA training so each TAA certified worker who is 

well fitted to retraining can access assistance. This priority arises because TAA 

training funds are a ‘‘capped entitlement,’’ while Trade Readjustment Allowances 

(TRA) income support is an ‘‘entitlement’’ under current law. Despite dramatically 

increasing trade deficits which reached a record of $763.6 billion in 2006, since FY 

2003 the training cap has been set by Congress at $220 million a year. 

Despite its limitations, TAA offers a number of advantages for certified workers 

over other dislocated worker programs, including most provided under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). In particular, the duration of income support and trainVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:41 Oct 03, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-15\34138.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
26

ing (up to 104 weeks) under TAA far exceeds what is commonly available to dislocated workers that are not eligible for TAA. In addition, TAA has a limited health 

care component—known as Health Coverage Tax Credit—that provides a refundable 

tax credit to cover 65 percent of premium costs for workers receiving TRA. While 

this health care provision has serious structural limitations, HCTC at least recognizes that dislocated workers, as do all workers have a major need for health care 

coverage. By providing income support and some health care, TAA is partially addressing two pressing needs of dislocated workers that are not addressed under 

other state and federal dislocated worker programs in the vast majority of cases. 

In this testimony, NELP will first outline major priorities regarding TAA reauthorization. We will then briefly address two issues that are intertwined with discussions of TAA reauthorization; namely, (1) why training is an important option 

for some dislocated workers and (2) why wage insurance is not a better option than 

TAA to address the impact of globalization on workers. 

Main TAA Reauthorization Issues 

TAA currently expires on September 30, 2007, unless reauthorized by Congress. 

TAA reauthorization offers an opportunity to eliminate legal and administrative 

barriers and make TAA available to more dislocated workers. Currently, there is a 

bi-partisan consensus that TAA should be improved. Positive reform bills were introduced last year in the House by Representatives Rangel and Smith (H.R. 4156), 

and already this year in the Senate (by Senators Baucus and Coleman, S. 122) and 

in the House (Representative English, H.R. 910). Although all these bills have positive features, we believe that a more comprehensive approach is needed, especially 

given the growing negative impact of trade on workers and the continuing loss of 

good jobs due to shifts overseas. We will now discuss the major issues involving TAA 

reauthorization. 

TAA Reauthorization Issue 1: Move toward a universal TAA program by expanding certification rules for TAA eligibility. 

Both Representative Rangel and Senator Baucus have spoken generally in support of what they have both termed ‘‘Globalization Adjustment Assistance.’’ To better serve workers dislocated by international trade’s impacts, TAA eligibility should 

be delinked from strict rules designed to require workers to show a close connection 

to imports or shifts in production to get TAA certification. TAA certification rules 

currently exclude many workers impacted by trade. 

As an initial limitation, TAA certification is limited to workers ‘‘producing an article.’’ This means that service workers and public employees that lose work due to 

offshoring of their jobs are not eligible for TAA because they do not make goods, 

but instead furnish services. A common example of this limitation is U.S. call center 

workers whose jobs are moved overseas to lower wage countries. These call center 

workers do not produce an article, so they are not eligible for TAA certification. The 

same can be said of computer programmers or engineering capacity that is being 

moved overseas. This particular problem with TAA certification is recognized by 

many key members of Congress and we support adding TAA eligibility for service 

workers and public employees as an important step during reauthorization. 

Beyond fixing TAA eligibility for service workers and public employees, there are 

remaining limitations in current law for manufacturing workers that are less widely 

understood. These limitations exist despite modest changes for secondary workers 

made by Congress in 2002. When reauthorizing TAA in 2007, Congress should 

eliminate remaining barriers for trade impacted manufacturing workers under existing rules governing TAA eligibility. 

Among the most important barriers is a limitation that denies TAA certification 

to many manufacturing workers that make component parts. This happens because 

parts workers, by definition, do not make articles that are ‘‘like and directly competitive’’ with finished products. As a result, when manufacturing parts workers lose 

jobs due to imports of finished products they are denied TAA in many cases. This 

occurs because imported final products compete with the domestic final product that 

their parts went into during final assembly. Only imports of parts would be ‘‘like 

and directly competitive’’ with articles manufactured by the parts workers, meaning 

that many of these parts workers are ineligible for TAA. 

In summary, under current law, there must be a close match between products 

to satisfy the ‘‘like and directly competitive’’ test for imports. For example, domestic 

workers that made television tubes are not eligible for TAA if they lose work due 

to the imports of fully-assembled televisions. This is because imported televisions 

are not ‘‘like and directly competitive’’ with domestically produced television parts. 

While some of these parts workers could theoretically gain TAA certification as 

‘‘secondary’’ workers under the 2002 amendments to TAA, the rules for secondary 

workers embody other significant limitations. First of all, secondary component 

27

parts workers are eligible for TAA only if they provide parts as a 1st tier supplier. 

Manufacturing employees of second and third tier supplier firms impacted by international trade remain ineligible for TAA under present rules. 

Second, secondary certifications are dependent upon a TAA certification at the 

primary assembly plant for which upstream secondary workers are furnishing components or for which downstream secondary workers finishing assembly. Secondary 

workers, in most cases, have no ability to control whether or not a petition is filed 

at the primary firm and the quality of that petition. As a result of these limitations 

in certification eligibility, significant numbers of secondary workers are not eligible 

for TAA under current rules. 

GAO’s 2004 study of TAA noted that few workers were taking advantage of expanded eligibility for secondary workers provided by the 2002 amendments.1 While 

GAO’s study recommended better outreach and assistance with filing petitions for 

secondary workers, these steps can only partially remedy the shortfall in certifications of secondary parts workers. Congress must recognize that existing rules bar 

TAA eligibility for many secondary manufacturing workers. 

In the automotive industry, roughly 2 manufacturing jobs in parts are lost for 

every job in an assembly plant closing they formerly supplied. No amount of outreach is going to help those working at 2nd and 3rd tier plants supplying Delphi, 

Ford, or GM assembly plants slated to close in many states. Unless Congress eliminates remaining barriers in current law for certification for manufacturing parts 

workers, these workers will not have TAA protections when they are laid off in coming months. 

Next, significant limitations exist under current law on eligibility for workers 

whose jobs are lost because their employers shift production outside the U.S. In the 

case of such shifts in production, workers are eligible if their jobs go to a country 

with an existing free trade agreement OR if the resulting shift in production increases imports of the article previously manufactured by the petitioning workers. 

The current formulation for TAA eligibility in cases of shifts in production has significant limitations: (1) since many countries, including China, do not have free 

trade agreements with the U.S., shifts in production to those countries are not covered by TAA; (2) if domestic workers made products for export prior to the shift of 

their jobs offshore to a country without a free trade agreement with the U.S., there 

will be no increase in imports to support certification; and (3) even if there are increased imports after a shift in production to a county without a free trade agreement, there is frequently a delay in the onset of imports following a U.S. plant closing. In addition, monitoring those imports and properly timing and documenting a 

TAA petition is nearly impossible for affected workers. For this reason, we recommend that Congress eliminate the requirement that limits TAA certification for 

shifts in production to those countries with existing free trade agreements. Any offshore shift in production should be covered by TAA. 

Finally, TAA eligibility rules require that workers at each plant separately petition for certification. Providing regional or industry wide certifications to address 

2nd and 3rd tier suppliers and other non-certifiable firms in trade-impacted communities or industries has been proposed. This is a good concept, but there is a challenge in making this concept a workable reality. Some proposals for industry certification for TAA have limited the power to file these broader petitions to the International Trade Commission or Congressional committees. We support industry and/

or regional certifications and would strongly recommend that Governors, unions, or 

affected local governments have authority to file these petitions. 

In short, we are advocating for a greatly expanded reach for the TAA program. 

Such an expansion will require significant additional federal resources. However, 

even at a time when federal resources are limited, it is the obligation of the government and the society to do more to compensate those who are impacted by trade 

policies through no fault of their own. 

Recommendation: Existing proposals for TAA reauthorization fall well short of the 

steps needed to reach a TAA program deserving of the Globalization Adjustment Assistance label. Here are some significant steps we recommend: 

• Shift dislocated worker programs toward a model that provides income support 

and health care by expanding TAA eligibility to protect more manufacturing workers while adding coverage for service workers and public employees. 

• Start a basic income support program for dislocated workers under TAA that 

is not tied to participation in training, while providing intensive job search assistance and reemployment services. 

• Develop criteria to establish regional or industry wide certification for 

globalization impacted workers. 

• Develop a new and reliable source of funding supporting significantly increased 

expenditures for globalization assistance. 

28

TAA Reauthorization Issue 2: A high priority for reform in the 2007 reauthorization is to ensure that adequate TAA training funds are available to train all certified workers that wish to participate in meaningful retraining programs. 

This priority arises because TAA training funds are a ‘‘capped entitlement,’’ while 

Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA) income support is an ‘‘entitlement’’ under 

current law. Despite dramatically increasing trade deficits, since FY 2003 the training cap has been set by Congress at $220 million a year. (In recent years, there has 

been a $39 million allocation for TAA administration, effectively raising the cap by 

15 percent because prior to that time administrative funds were deducted from 

training funds.) 

There is a pronounced conflict between promising trade-impacted workers training with income support while only authorizing limited funding for TAA training. 

As a result of this conflict, TAA certified workers interested in training are not able 

to get training, they are steered into shorter-term training, or they have training 

delayed while reserve training funds are sought from the Labor Department 

(USDOL). Consequently, when these certified workers eventually get into training 

it is of shorter duration because those weeks of potential training are lost through 

delays in enrollment. Certified workers also lose additional TRA (the last 52 weeks 

of TRA) because participation in training is a condition of eligibility for those additional TRA benefits. Since no tuition dollars are available, TRA is denied as well 

in these cases. 

In a 2004 report to the Senate Finance Committee, the Government Accountability Office found 19 states had discontinued training enrollment due to shortages 

of training funds between FY 2001 and FY 2003. NELP is aware of similar issues 

regarding training approvals in the last two years in Illinois, Michigan, and to some 

degree in Ohio. In Michigan, WIA dollars are currently being used to provide TAA 

certified workers with training in some locations due to delays in approving and distributing reserve TAA funding. For this reason, addressing the cap on TAA training 

during reauthorization is vitally important. 

Beyond the overall limitation on training under the $220 million cap on spending, 

the cap creates significant issues regarding distribution of training funds to states 

and interferes with the timing of funding. These issues arise because there must 

be an administrative mechanism to distribute limited TAA training funds to states 

and then on to recipients. If during reauthorization Congress ensures that training 

dollars flow automatically to TAA training participants, then these obstacles to 

training participation would be reduced or eliminated. Nonetheless, these distribution issues are very real obstacles that this Committee should understand if it wishes to better comprehend why some workers get less help from TAA than promised. 

To begin, U.S. Department of Labor’s formula for allocating limited training funds 

among the various states is seriously flawed. Beginning in FY 2003, the Labor Department began withholding 25 percent of training funds ($55 million) as a reserve. 

The remaining 75 percent ($165 million) is distributed to states based upon a formula that provides 80 percent of the base funding ($132 million) relying upon each 

state’s training spending averaged over the prior three fiscal years with 20 percent 

of the funding ($33 million) based upon each state’s average number of program participants over the prior 3 fiscal years. 

An obvious result of this sort of retrospective funding formula is that states with 

high TAA caseloads in 2000 to 2002 were advantaged at the outset as compared to 

other states. In addition, because the formula includes a hold harmless element and 

does not take current increases in TAA certifications into consideration, the formula 

does not adjust quickly enough for states with high TAA caseloads. As a result, 

some states with rapidly increasing caseloads must rely upon TAA reserve funding 

to pay for training. The table below illustrates some of our concerns.

TAA BASE TRAINING ALLOCATION INEQUITIES 

State FY 04 

Certifications FY 04 Base FY 06 Certifications FY 06 Base 

Washington ..................................................................... 30 $13.4 million 16 $14.4 million 

Pennsylvania .................................................................. 128 $20.6 million 97 $14.9 million 

North Carolina ................................................................ 211 $6.3 million 180 $9.9 million 

Michigan ......................................................................... 76 $5.3 million 104 $5.8 million 

Without suggesting any criticism of states with higher TAA spending levels, the 

outcome of the current TAA base allocation formula is difficult to understand from 

the perspective of equitable treatment of TAA participants. Perhaps most noticeable 

thing in our table is that Washington State got $14.4 million in its base training 

29

allocation for FY 2006 with just 16 TAA certifications, while North Carolina is getting $9.9 million for 180 certifications. Certainly, we believe the cost of training and 

the availability of training should be roughly equivalent for workers without regard 

to the state of residence of certified workers. 

Under the existing formula, states must increase spending and training participation to increase their base funding. But states that have a greater need now for TAA 

funds as compared to when the formula was started cannot keep pace by increasing 

their spending and participation unless they are willing to risk obligating training 

funds beyond levels set by their base allocations. Most states do not have sufficient 

confidence that they can approve training over base allocations or facing delays in 

distribution of reserve training funds. Conversely, if current funding levels impede 

approval and increases in participation, then the formula itself will never provide 

added base funding to a state. 

Additional funding issues are created because the Labor Department withholds 25 

percent of allotted TAA training funds each year. While in theory these dollars are 

later available to states asking for reserve funds, states with higher TAA caseloads 

operate on the reasonable assumption that their base TAA training allocation is 

largely what they have to spend for TAA training in that fiscal year. For this reason, the Labor Department’s withholding of reserve funds effectively limits TAA 

training spending through rationing by states when they approve individual training requests by certified workers. 

A second impact of withholding the training reserve is that USDOL advises Congressional staff that states have not expended all training dollars (or that there is 

no problem with the $220 million cap) because states did not obligate the prior 

year’s entire training allocation. This report by USDOL is literally true, because, 

after paying for any approved requests for reserve funds during a year, USDOL distributes remaining reserve funds on the last day of each fiscal year. As a result, 

few states with higher TAA caseloads have obligated their entire training allocation 

during any fiscal year because they receive reserve funding on the last day of each 

fiscal year. USDOL then reports to Congress that few states spent their prior fiscal 

year’s training allocation and that there is sufficient funding for TAA training. An 

additional issue is created because this late distribution of remaining reserve funds 

takes place around September 30 after enrollment deadlines for fall semesters have 

passed. As a result, workers laid off in the summer often wait until the next January to start training, losing potential weeks of training as a result. 

Solutions: 

• Congress should make TAA training an uncapped entitlement. Eliminating the 

overall cap on training funding would also eliminate funding distribution bottle 

necks at USDOL, since release of training dollars could accompany any new TAA 

certification. This was essentially the practice in place prior to 2002. • If overall limitations on TAA training funds are kept in place, ensuring that 

added training funds flow automatically when new certifications are made and that 

funding will be available over the projected term of training are essential steps for 

reauthorization. In addition, requiring distribution of 95 percent of reserve training 

funds by no later than July 1 each year is recommended to permit timely enrollment 

for fall semesters. 

• With respect to funding, we also note that TAA reauthorization bills in this 

Congress and the prior Congress have proposed TAA eligibility for ‘‘service’’ workers 

and public employees losing work due to offshoring of their jobs. If this is done, then 

expanding TAA training funds is even more critical. Otherwise, TAA certified manufacturing workers will simply compete with newly eligible service workers for scarce 

TAA training funds/ Expanding eligibility to service workers without addressing the 

cap on TAA training funds will simply pit newly-eligible service workers and public 

employees against manufacturing workers in a battle for scarce TAA training funds. 

TAA Reauthorization Issue 3: Fix Health Coverage Tax Credit Program. 

Dislocated workers frequently lose their health care coverage when they are separated from work. Maintaining health insurance coverage, along with income support, serve one of the most important needs of families experiencing job loss. Despite 

the importance of health care coverage to laid off workers, most dislocated workers 

have not been able to participate in the Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) program since it was offered in 2003. Once an application is set up, HCTC works as 

a refundable tax credit that pays 65 percent of health care premium costs to workers eligible for Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA). Since TAA is the only federal 

program offering income support for dislocated workers, fixing HCTC so it can help 

more TAA certified workers get health care while they search for work or take training is another important priority for TAA reauthorization in 2007. 

The biggest obstacle to HCTC eligibility is its affordability. Under current rules, 

a jobless worker must pay 35 percent of his/her health insurance premium. If the 

30

only health plan available is COBRA, this cost can run into hundreds of dollars a 

month for family coverage. A second obstacle is that initial set up of an HCTC claim 

requires jobless workers to pay at least 1 and up to 3 months of health coverage 

premiums out of pocket. Needless to say, paying 100 percent of health care costs 

is not something that most working individuals could afford, let alone individuals 

that have been laid off. 

Beyond these two cost issues, the administration of HCTC is very complicated and 

dislocated workers cannot navigate the program without substantial assistance in 

completing applications and assembling the required documentation. While local 

unions, one-stops and community groups, and state agencies do their best to help, 

HCTC has had far too many administrative roadblocks. And, in some states there 

are no qualified health plans, other than COBRA, offered to TAA certified workers. 

Recommendations: There are a number of steps required to make HCTC a more 

workable solution for more dislocated workers. • Congress should change the refundable tax credit formula from 65 percent tax 

credit/35 percent worker paid to 90 percent tax credit/10 percent worker paid. • HCTC should provide up front 100 percent payment until refundable tax credit 

is set up by IRS. • Tie HCTC eligibility to TAA participation as opposed to TRA recipiency because 

TRA is denied or interrupted in some cases and verification of TRA payment is a 

burden on HCTC administration. • Congress should designate the Federal Employment Health Plan as a back up 

plan for HCTC in all states. 

TAA Reauthorization Issue 4: Remove Obstacles in TAA Program Administration. 

Many in Washington are puzzled by how few dislocated workers that are separated from TAA certified workplaces participate in TAA training or get TRA. For 

the most part, despite numerous studies by GAO and other researchers, how this 

program works on the ground is largely invisible to those making the rules. In our 

experience, TAA is a complex program to administer and this complexity is a significant reason why more workers don’t participate in TAA. What is surprising to 

NELP is how well the program works despite its complexity, and this is largely due 

to many dedicated state and local staff that work very hard to make TAA work as 

well as it does. In many cases, these individuals are helped by United Way and community agencies, union staff, and others that pitch in and help out. 

What do we mean by complexity? During a typical dislocation involving TAA, 

many workers, often hundreds of workers, must be advised of their rights and responsibilities, learn about training options and enroll if appropriate, apply for HCTC 

or Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) if desired, get training waivers 

if needed, and apply for unemployment insurance or TRA on a weekly or bi-weekly 

basis. Assessments are supposed to get done. Work search rules must be explained 

and job search must be documented. Class attendance must be documented and recorded. Mental health and social services needs must be addressed. The 8/16 week 

rule requires TAA certified workers to enroll in training by the end of the 16th week 

after his/her layoff from trade-affected employment OR the end of the 8th week 

after the week of the TAA certification decision covering his/her workplace. Many 

workers find out about TAA too late, especially when a certification decision is made 

after the plant closing and the company does not help the state agency locate the 

workers. 

States get no added administrative dollars to handle TRA payments and TAA administration is limited to 15 percent of approved training dollars. In small states, 

there are only 1 or 2 individuals responsible for rapid response and TAA in an entire state. Congress has added features like HCTC and ATAA that add further complexity. Many TAA certified dislocations take place in large workplaces, sometimes 

located in rural communities. Most states do not use peer networks and labor-management communities to engage workers to the degree we would recommend. Most 

agencies running TAA do not have staff adequate to serve hundreds of workers. 

Some locations do not have TAA certifications each year and staff turnover or promotion eliminates institutional knowledge. Even in smaller dislocations, an office 

might see a dozen dislocated workers for its WIA dislocated worker program in a 

year and then have dozens of TAA certified workers requiring services in a month 

or 6-week period. 

Recommendations: NELP staffers been involved with TAA to some degree since 

1984. To our knowledge, those that really administer TAA in the states have never 

been seriously involved when TAA reauthorization takes place. For that reason, our 

overall recommendation is that Congress seeks input from unions, state agencies, 

one-stops and others involved knowledgeable with the technical aspects of TAA administration. NELP would help gladly with such an effort. At this point, a complete 

listing of administrative barriers is not possible, but based upon consultations with 

31

stakeholders, NELP recommends these added measures to simplify TAA administration and increase participation by TAA certified workers. • Adequate administrative funding is essential. There is currently no TAA funding for job search assistance, case management, and assessments of TAA certified 

workers. This funding should be added to existing funds for program administration. • We support using merit staff that administer state unemployment insurance 

laws, the UI work test, and Wagner-Peyser programs for implementation of TAA, 

and rebuilding that employment and training backbone in future years. • The 8/16 week deadline for enrollment in training or obtaining training waivers 

is debilitating to the program and must be fixed. Legislation should lengthen time 

limits to 16 weeks and 26 weeks and automatically extend them when they are 

missed due to agency error or negligence. Permit waivers of 8/16 week deadline 

under state good cause rules. • Permit training waivers for 90 days and allow work search waivers for those 

enrolled in but not yet participating in training. 

Is Training Useful for Dislocated Workers? 

Claims by critics that publicly-funded training is not effective are no truer than 

competing claims that training and education are an overall answer to the decline 

in middle class jobs. Both are unwarranted overgeneralizations. In our view, as with 

most other human endeavors, job training and education results are directly related 

to the investment made and the time spent in training. 

In the U.S., especially in the last decade, we have mostly operated our training 

programs with a ‘‘work first’’ philosophy, and a majority of job training has been 

short-term and generic. This philosophy is embodied is the Bush Administration’s 

proposed ‘‘Career Advancement Accounts,’’ which are essentially $3,000 vouchers. 

These accounts are provided to workers who are then expected to choose from competing training providers in order to get retrained for new occupations. 

When discussing retraining for trade-impacted workers, it is fair to narrow our 

focus because dislocated manufacturing workers are not the same as other workers 

receiving public training. In particular, dislocated manufacturing workers are older, 

have longer job tenures, less formal education, and have higher wages than most 

others getting publicly-funded training. Of necessity, many dislocated manufacturing workers are forced to look for work in new industries where their prior skills, 

seniority and wages are less likely to transfer. And, since trade-related economic 

dislocations are frequently concentrated in specific regions, a longer period of job 

search and intervening period of unemployment should be expected. 

This means that short-term training like that commonly employed under WIA is 

less likely to result in comparable replacement wages. Thus, as Professor Paul 

Osterman of MIT argues in his study of new options for employment and training 

policies, ‘‘short-term training leads to small or non-existent gains’’ for dislocated 

workers, ‘‘ while ‘‘more substantial long-term training does seem to improve the 

earnings of dislocated workers to an important degree.’’2 Indeed, part of the problem 

with TAA training, which is largely a function of limited training funds, is that the 

training has been mostly short-term, as documented by the GAO.3

Given the special employment challenges facing dislocated workers, it is helpful 

to look to those programs that have provided a more long-term investment in training and income support. For example, Washington State provides dislocated workers 

with extended unemployment benefits to participate in state-approved training. 

Those who participate are mostly workers with just a high school degree who were 

laid off from manufacturing jobs in aerospace and other state industries.4 85% of 

them participated in community or technical colleges, with the largest numbers participating in information technology programs. By the third quarter after leaving 

the program, 72% of the more than 8,000 participants were employed, making an 

average of 93% of their pre-dislocation wages.5

Other studies have shown that more extended training in community college program geared toward skills development can have a meaningful impact on the wages 

of dislocated workers. For example, an evaluation of dislocated workers participating in Pennsylvania’s community college programs found that men earned $1,047 

more per quarter by attending community college and women earned $812 more.6 

Other training and education programs, like the California Employment and Training Fund and the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, successfully target key 

state industries, building partnerships between employers, unions and training providers.7 It is not just training for the sake of training. Instead, the training is demand driven by quality state and local planning and a partnership with employers 

that helps build a growing economy. 

Professor Osterman makes a strong case for building on these and other state innovations as the framework to reform the nation’s employment and training system. 

32

He concludes that a primary element ‘‘the new programs share in common is that 

they make substantial investments in their clients. The new programs reject the 

quick and dirty training, short-term investments, and simple job search assistance 

models that characterize much of the traditional E & T system.’’8 The challenge at 

the federal level is to build on these state innovations that equip the nation’s workers to compete successfully for good jobs. There is certainly no shortage of experience, but what is needed is the will at the federal level and a far more substantial 

investment of resources. As documented by the states, a meaningful investment of 

resources in training can generate a substantial return to local business, workers 

and the economy.9

Wage Insurance is a Flawed Approach to Addressing the Needs of Dislocated Work- ers 

In the past year, a number of members of Congress have proposed the development of ‘‘wage insurance’’, as a potential solution to the ills facing dislocated workers. We appreciate the concern being articulated by many about the needs of workers and their families whose lives are thrown into disarray when they lose a good 

job and find themselves with no other options but to take a major cut in pay on 

a new job. 

We strongly believe that wage insurance is the wrong solution. Rather than encouraging workers to forgo their long-term interests for a wage insurance job, Congress should focus on more meaningful solutions that create genuine economic security and more family-friendly sustaining jobs in our economy. We have seen it work 

in the states, which have created subsidized health insurance for the unemployed 

that runs alongside the UI program and self-sustaining ‘‘home protection funds’’ 

that provide no interest loans to laid-off families so they can cover mortgage payments in high unemployment areas. The states have also been at the forefront of 

new models of training that help make their local economies more competitive and 

save good-paying jobs. 

Like the AFL-CIO and several major unions that have expressed concerns with 

wage insurance, we also believe that there are far too many unanswered questions 

that convince us it is not the right time to move ahead with a national wage insurance program. 

First, it is important to ask whether wage insurance will promote more downward 

mobility for the nation’s most vulnerable workers, since by definition wage insurance jobs pay far less. Thus, wage insurance jobs are also less likely to provide 

health insurance and other critical benefits. We believe that the limited federal resources devoted to the economic security of America’s workers should promote good 

employment outcomes and quality jobs, but that is not the case with wage insurance. Wage insurance amounts to a subsidy to those employers in the economy who 

provide jobs with the worst wages and benefits. 

We are also not aware of any empirical evidence that wage insurance jobs will 

provide transferable skills or other meaningful training. In fact, there is strong empirical evidence that lower wage jobs require less skill and therefore provide little 

or no on the job training of any real value. This fundamental weakness of a wage 

insurance approach is compounded since both the Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance program and proposals to expand wage insurance are written in such a way 

that precludes most workers from pursuing the quality education and training they 

need to compete for better jobs in today’s economy. 

Second, does the experience with actual wage insurance programs make a convincing case that now is the time to create a new national program? What we know 

from the only major evaluation of a wage insurance program, the Canadian pilot 

program, is that it failed in most areas to achieve its intended results. Thus, the 

Canadians never adopted wage insurance. And we are still waiting for the results 

from the ATAA program which serves workers over the age of 50, although we know 

that participation in the trade program has been limited. 

Another question that has not received enough attention is what impact will the 

program have on other workers who are competing for similar jobs with those collecting wage insurance? A leading researcher with the Upjohn Institute found that 

‘‘virtually all the employment gains experienced by dislocated workers as a result 

of the wage subsidy come at the expense of other workers.’’ Will this ‘‘crowding out’’ 

effect be even more severe in those communities in the Midwest and elsewhere 

where there are already large concentrations of dislocated workers? 

In addition to the research questions, there is also the concern that wage insurance could undermine those federal programs that now provide some measure of 

economic security to U.S. workers. An expanded wage insurance program would be 

in direct competition with resources for long overdue improvements in the TAA program and in bedrock economic security programs. We are also concerned with the 

33

precedent wage insurance will set when hostile groups like the Heritage Foundation 

are on record strongly supporting wage insurance as a ‘‘rapid reemployment’’ substitute to dismantle the TAA program. Will wage insurance set the stage for more 

attacks on TAA? And when the next recession hits, will the Heritage Foundation 

and others argue for a more limited federal extension of jobless benefits when workers can qualify instead for wage insurance by taking jobs that require a significant 

pay cut? Already, the Bush Administration and Rep. Weller have called for waivers 

of federal UI law to authorize states to experiment with wage insurance with their 

UI funds. This support points to the great theoretical weakness of wage insurance—

the way it fits within a work-first philosophy of low-cost interventions that push unemployed individuals into any job regardless of its quality. You cannot deal with the 

damage of trade policies to workers on the cheap. 

These are some of the difficult questions that leave many of us who work with 

these programs convinced that wage insurance could do far more harm than good. 

Conclusion 

Both opponents and supporters of free trade and globalization have promoted TAA 

as a promise to the victims of U.S. trade policy. In reality, TAA has never lived up 

to its promised role as a comprehensive vehicle for readjustment of those losing 

work as a result of trade. However, the model put forward by TAA—extended income support to workers so they can complete meaningful training courses—holds 

great promise for dislocated workers. We are hopeful that the United States economic and political dialogue has finally reached the point that we take seriously the 

damage caused by globalization and provide the real resources and support to the 

TAA program. 

RESOURCES

For more on TAA, please see Rick McHugh and Phil Gilliam, Getting Certified for 

Trade Adjustment Assistance, a Guide for Unions, Workforce Agencies and 

Community Groups, National Employment Law Project, 2005. 

ENDNOTES

1 U.S. General Accountability Office ‘‘Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated 

Training Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain,’’ GAO-04-1012, September 2004 2Paul Osterman, ‘‘Employment and Training Policies: New Directions for Less Skilled Adults’’ 

(MIT Sloan School, October 2005), at page 14. 3 U.S. General Accountability Office, Trade Adjustment Assistance: Most Workers in Five Layoffs Received Services, But Better Outreach Needed on New Benefits (January 2006) at page 

21. In describing the results of the TAA training, which was provided to less than one-third of 

those surveyed, the GAO concluded ‘‘it may be too soon to know the effect of training on employment outcomes’’ because a large number of the workers surveyed (ranging from one-third to over 

60%) were still participating in training at the time of the study. Id. at pages 31, 35. 4Washington State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, Training Benefits 

Program Review (December 2002). 5 Id. at page 8. 

6Trutko, et al. Final Report: Earnings Replacement Outcomes for Dislocated Workers: Extent 

of Variation and Factors Accounting for Variation in Earnings Replacement Outcomes Across 

State and Local Workforce Investment Boards (Capital Research Corporation, March 2005), at 

page A-8. 7 Richard Moore, et al., Training that Works: Lessons from California’s Employment & Training Panel Program (W.E. Upjohn for Employment Research, 2003); Neighborhood Funders 

Groups, ‘‘Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership: Hooking Community Residents Up to Jobs 

(NFG Reports, Summer 2000, Issue Two, Vol. Seven). 8Osterman at page 25. 

9Press Release, California Employment & Training Panel, ‘‘State Agency Investment Training 

Workers is Pay Big Dividends for California Employers, Study Says’’ (June 28, 2000); Kevin 

Hollenbeck, Wei-Jang Huang, ‘‘Net Impact and Benefit-Cost Estimates of the Workforce Development System in Washington ‘‘ (Upjohn Institute: July 2003). 

Chairman MILLER. We will segue to Dr. Brainard here on wage 

insurance. 

Welcome. 

34

STATEMENT OF LAEL BRAINARD, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT AND 

DIRECTOR, BERNARD L. SCHWARTZ CHAIR IN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS, BROOKINGS GLOBAL ECONOMY AND 

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 

Ms. BRAINARD. Chairman Miller, Congressman McKeon, members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to 

testify before the committee today. 

Clearly, today’s workers face a very different labor market than 

did their fathers, and yet, the reality is they are still only offered 

the options that were available to our parents’ generation in terms 

of the safety net. Today’s workers are much less likely to be attached long-term to a particular employer and are much more likely to face the bracing winds of global competition, which is now 

reaching into higher and higher valued manufacturing as well as 

services. With increased turnover and increased competition, inevitably come increased uncertainty and, for many workers, increased 

economic insecurity. The question that you pose today is, How effective are existing programs in helping workers impacted by international trade? I think the answer is pretty clear. 

They are not as effective as we would all like them very much 

to be. Too many workers face the prospects of large declines in 

their earnings as well as in health insurance and other important 

benefits when they are displaced through no fault of their own. Despite the fact that we rank second to none as a nation when it 

comes to turnover, we are at the bottom of the pack when it comes 

to safety nets among the richer economies. And I will just point to 

TAA. TAA, because it is so carefully constrained in terms of who 

ends up becoming eligible, only certifies as eligible about 75,000 

new workers per year, and if you look at the outcomes of that program, I think we are all disappointed by them. Between 2001-2004, 

an average of only 64 percent of participants found jobs while they 

participated in TAA. 

So my view is that we have a very brief opportunity to align the 

Nation’s policies against the new realities facing American families. 

I think this is a moment to be bold. There is a lot of time to make 

up for, and I am not sure how long that window will be open. 

In the first instance, as people have said, it means instituting a 

set of policies that support good jobs that pay well here at home. 

They range across the board from investing in education, workforce 

training to infrastructure and competitiveness, but we also need to 

acknowledge that some people are going to lose and that we need 

to strengthen the Nation’s safety net. I think it means strengthening the income and health insurance available to workers during 

periods of unemployment and certainly broadening access and the 

quality of training to those who are unemployed, but I also think 

it means ensuring against sharp earnings losses for those once they 

get reemployed. 

Mr. Herman talked about wage insurance not being a better option. I hope nobody proposes wage insurance as a better option. I 

think all three elements are not only compatible with each other 

but essential. 

If you look at why strengthening income and health insurance 

alone are, again, essential but not sufficient, I think the evidence 

on earnings losses following permanent displacement are sobering. 

35

1This draws from analysis in Lael Brainard, Robert Litan, and Nicholas Warren, ‘‘Insuring 

American Workers in a New Era of Offshoring’’ Brookings Policy Brief 143, July 2005 http:/

/www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb143.htm and ‘‘A Fairer Deal for American Workers 

in a New Era of Offshoring,’’ in Susan Collins and Lael Brainard (eds.) Offshoring White Collar 

Work (Brookings Press, 2006) http://www.brookings.edu/es/commentary/journals/tradeforum/

2005btf—brainard.pdf. 

I think they are sobering enough to make us take a serious look 

at additional policy instruments to help workers once they are reemployed, not just while they are unemployed. 

Take those displaced workers who qualify for TAA. Even after 

taking advantage of the extended unemployment benefits and the 

relatively expansive—but with flaws—training benefits, earnings in 

their new jobs are, on average, 20 percent of those in their old jobs. 

That is quite an income shock. For permanently displaced workers 

who suffer earnings losses, which is about half of those reporting 

being reemployed full time, average earnings in the new job are 

about 16 percent lower than earnings in the previous job. So people 

are already, unfortunately, taking jobs that pay substantially less 

than the jobs that they had at their previous employers. 

An achieved goal of wage insurance would be for that group of 

workers to smooth their incomes to essentially help them get a foot 

back up on the economic ladder, and I think it is important to say 

this is not or should not be construed as a trade program only. I 

think the eligibility requirements associated with trade programs 

are so narrowing that it takes way too long to become eligible, and 

it does not help the number of people who deserve that kind of 

help. I think we have some evidence from a small program that 

was undertaken elsewhere that it does help to broaden the job 

search. It does help workers perhaps move into other sectors where 

jobs are being created, and it can facilitate valuable on-the-job 

training, again, not as a replacement for but as a supplement to 

existing programs. 

What would this cost? We estimate that a moderate program 

that replaces about 50 percent of losses for long-tenured, full-time, 

permanently displaced workers would cost roughly $3.5 billion per 

year on average, which is about $25 per worker as an insurance 

program. If you think about it, the price of $25 per worker, per 

year, wage insurance could be, again, one important policy tool 

alongside unemployment, strengthened unemployment insurance, 

along with health care insurance, along with improved training opportunities. 

I think we are facing a unique window of opportunity to finally 

make progress in significantly updating the Nation’s safety net, 

and it would be a shame not to look at all of the options on the 

table and to move forward boldly. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Brainard follows:]

Prepared Statement of Lael Brainard,1 Ph.D., Vice President and Director, 

Bernard L. Schwartz Chair in International Economics, the Brookings 

Global Economy and Development Program 

Chairman Miller, Congressman McKeon, members of the Committee, I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify before your committee today. 

36

2 ‘‘Is the Company Man an Anachronism? Trends in Long Term Employment in the U.S., 1973-

2005’’ forthcoming in The Price of Independence: The Economics of Early Adulthood, edited by 

Sheldon Danziger and Cecilia Rouse (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007). 

Today’s Economic Realities 

American workers today face a very different employment outlook than their parents encountered back in the 1960s—when Trade Adjustment Assistance was enacted under President John F. Kennedy. 

Today’s workers are much more likely to transition several times between different employers over the course of their working lifetimes. According to Princeton 

scholar Henry Farber, men currently in the age range of 35 to 64 are almost 20 percentage points less likely to be in ten-year jobs as were males in this age range 

roughly 45 years ago.2

Today, a much larger expanse of occupations and sectors are exposed to the bracing winds of global competition—with trade now exceeding 25 percent of national 

income compared with less than 10 percent back in the 1960s. 

With increased turnover and increased competition come increased uncertainty 

and, for some workers, increased economic insecurity. For permanently displaced 

workers who suffer earnings losses, average earnings in the new job are 16 percent 

lower than earnings in the previous job, while displaced manufacturing workers 

moving into lower paying jobs face an average 20 percent drop in earnings. The consequences of job loss are particularly damaging in import-competing industries, 

where displaced workers face longer spells of unemployment and greater permanent 

wage declines than do workers in other industries. 

The causes for increased insecurity faced by American middle class households 

are complex, but almost certainly include globalization and changes in technology 

among the primary drivers. The current episode of global integration dwarfs previous expansions: the entry of India and China into the global labor force amounts 

to an expansion of roughly 70 percent—concentrated at the lower end of the wage 

scale. Textbook economics would predict a squeeze on wage earners until capital and 

technology investments adjust. And the data suggest inequality is once again on the 

rise in many of the world’s richer economies. 

Because China is successfully pursuing at a scale never seen before a growth 

strategy that is export-led and foreign direct investment fed, its rise is sending 

waves to the farthest reaches of the global economy. China is already deeply embedded in global manufacturing supply chains, confronting higher wage manufacturers 

with the difficult choice of moving up the value chain or lowering costs. 

India’s concurrent economic emergence has complicated the challenge. While India 

is pursuing a growth strategy more reliant on domestic consumption and investment 

than China, nonetheless its success in exporting higher skilled ‘‘knowledge’’ services 

such as software programming has expanded the scope of globalization. Many Americans in white collar occupations are confronting the reality of low wage foreign competition for the first time. 

How Effective Are Existing Programs? 

Today’s hearing addresses the question, ‘‘How Effective are Existing Programs in 

Helping Workers Impacted by International Trade?’’ The answer is simple: existing 

programs are not nearly as effective as they must be in helping workers who may 

face the prospect of large earnings declines as well as loss of health insurance when 

their jobs are displaced through no fault of their own. In the face of accelerated job 

losses in manufacturing and white-collar offshoring in services, an ever-broader pool 

of American workers is finding that the nation’s safety net has more holes than netting. 

Despite the fact that the U.S. labor market ranks second to none when it comes 

to job turnover, the nation’s safety net for easing job transitions remains one of the 

weakest among the wealthy economies. In comparison with other high income countries, not only do U.S. unemployment benefits have a shorter duration, but displaced 

workers in America face the prospect of losing health benefits along with income. 

The main federally mandated unemployment insurance (UI) program contains so 

many restrictions that today only about 40 percent of all jobless workers receive 

benefits. 

The last serious overhaul of the nation’s employment safety net was in 1962, 

when President John F. Kennedy established the TAA program to compensate workers who suffer job loss as a result of trade liberalization. But workers have long 

found it difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to prove that they are entitled to 

extended unemployment benefits under the nation’s Trade Adjustment Assistance 

(TAA) program. 

37

In 2002 Congress overhauled and expanded TAA, adding a health care tax credit, 

doubling the training budget, and substantially raising budget outlays for income 

support. But the TAA program continues to disappoint. Participation has remained 

surprisingly low, thanks in part to confusing Department of Labor interpretations 

and practices that ultimately deny benefits to roughly three- quarters of workers 

who are certified as eligible for them. TAA has helped fewer than 75,000 new workers per year, while denying more than 40 percent of all employers’ petitions. And 

remarkably, the Department of Labor has interpreted the TAA statute as excluding 

the growing number of services workers displaced by trade. 

Despite its laudable goals, the TAA program has repeatedly failed to meet expectations. Between 2001 and 2004, an average of only 64 percent of participants found 

jobs while they participated in TAA. And earnings on the new job were more than 

20 percent below those prior to displacement. 

Expanding Training and Insurance while Unemployed and Insuring Wages once Reemployed 

I believe we have a brief window of opportunity to align the nation’s policies 

against the new economic realities facing American families. In the first instance, 

this means instituting a set of policies that support good jobs and good pay here 

in America. They range from investing in education and workforce training to infrastructure and competitiveness policies. 

But we should also seize on this window of opportunity to strengthen the nation’s 

safety net to better insure against the economic insecurity faced by too many American families. That means strengthening the income and health insurance available 

to workers during periods of unemployment, broadening access and improving the 

quality of retraining programs, and insuring against sharp earnings losses once reemployed. Let me be clear about this: I think all three elements are not only compatible with each other but essential. 

Strengthening income and health insurance and retraining programs while workers are unemployed are absolutely essential—but not sufficient when workers too 

often face the prospect of much lower earnings even after they secure a job following 

permanent displacement. Let’s take trade displaced workers as an example. For 

those displaced workers who qualify for TAA, even after taking advantage of the extended unemployment benefits and relatively expansive training benefits that are 

available under TAA, earnings in their new jobs are on average 20 percent below 

their old jobs. 

The evidence on earnings losses following permanent displacement is sufficiently 

compelling to warrant a serious examination of additional policy instruments to help 

workers once they are reemployed—not just while they are unemployed. The time 

has come to augment existing programs by adopting a new insurance program that 

insures against sharp declines in wages, not just unemployment, for permanently 

displaced workers. 

A chief goal of wage insurance is to smooth the incomes of workers who suffer 

permanent displacement and declines in their earnings. Wage insurance is most 

likely to have overall positive economic benefits if it targets workers whose earnings 

would otherwise fall dramatically as forces outside their control devalue their skills. 

Evidence suggests that wage insurance encourages workers to consider different 

types of jobs and sectors of employment and, therefore, broadens the job search. 

This is particularly important for displaced workers whose firm-specific skills have 

declined in value. And wage insurance can facilitate valuable on-the-job training; 

the training that a displaced worker receives on a new job provides new skills that 

contribute directly to his or her performance in the new job. 

By replacing some of the lost earnings, wage insurance could also encourage more 

rapid reemployment; a Canadian pilot wage insurance program reduced unemployment durations by 4.4 percent on average. 

Because the goal is to provide partial insurance against extreme income fluctuations, wage insurance should be available to all permanently displaced workers, who 

have at least two years of tenure at the previous job. It might also make sense to 

restrict the program to workers displaced from full-time jobs and reemployed fulltime, so as to avoid any possible incentive to reduce hours of work. Further, the 

compensation period would be limited to some transition period, perhaps 2 years, 

long enough to help strengthen the new employment relationship. 

The wage loss replacement rate, the duration of benefits, and the annual cap on 

compensation determine the kinds of workers who would benefit most from the program. A high replacement rate (such as 70 percent) combined with a low annual 

compensation cap would provide the greatest cushion to lower-income workers suffering steep losses in earnings, while a lower replacement rate (such as 30 percent) 

combined with a high annual cap would tilt benefits toward higher income earners. 

38

According to our estimates, a wage insurance program that replaces 50 percent 

of earnings losses for long tenure full-time displaced workers up to a maximum of 

$10,000 per year for up to two years would cost roughly $3.5 billion per year, assuming modest offsetting savings in other programs. On a per worker basis, this 

cost falls midway between the current unemployment and retraining benefits available under UI and Worker Investment Act (WIA) programs and the comprehensive 

cost of TAA benefits. 

How do we think about the price tag? The net cost of $3.5 billion per year 

amounts to an insurance premium of roughly $25 per worker per year. 

Under such a program, an average trade—displaced worker, who earned $37,382 

in 2004 and was reemployed with a 26 percent loss rate at $27,662 would instead 

receive $33,522 for the first two years after reemployment, thus enabling them to 

smooth their income while becoming more valuable in the new job. 

Of course, the costs can be substantially reduced by offering more modest benefits. 

For a high-unemployment year such as 2003, costs could range from a low of $1.6 

billion for a one-year program with a 30 percent replacement rate and a $10,000 

cap to a high of $7 billion for a two-year program with a 70 percent replacement 

rate and a $20,000 annual cap. 

Wage insurance could provide an important tool—in a broader set of policies—designed to help American middle class families insure against disruptive income fluctuations, while preserving the benefits of a dynamic economy. For the price of $25 

per worker per year, wage insurance could be an important policy tool to help make 

work pay following displacement. Faced with a unique window of opportunity to finally make progress in updating and strengthening America’s fraying safety net, it 

would be a shame not to move forward boldly on all fronts to provide greater economic security to American families. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Dr. Alford. 

STATEMENT OF TIM ALFORD, PH.D.,

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

Dr. ALFORD. Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members of 

the committee, it is my honor and pleasure to appear before the 

committee to share my views on the effectiveness of existing Federal programs in helping workers impacted by international trade. 

I come here as a seeker after truth and not as one who has found 

it. I also do so from the vantage point of the State Director of 

Workforce Development who has responsibility for the leadership, 

oversight and coordination of all such programs. Therefore, I am a 

generalist and claim neither particular experience nor expertise in 

the minutia of regulations, eligibility criteria and other such issues 

related to the day-to-day administration of the TAA program. 

I also come here from the convoluted vantage point of a former 

teacher, principal, superintendent, college administrator and instructor, economic developer, small business owner, business consultant in workforce development, and mayor. I am also a first-generation college student whose single-parent mother worked in the 

sweat shop shirt factories of rural south Alabama in the 1940s, 

1950s and 1960s to make a subsistence living for us. 

I point this out to let you know that I have real heart for those 

hardworking persons who are adversely impacted by international 

trade as well as by the escalating workplace/skill requirements in 

our Nation and in my State in particular. I think the Southern Regional Education Board said it best when it stated, ‘‘it is as if many 

of our workers dozed off by the wood stove and awakened by the 

microwave, unprepared or under-prepared for the skill demands of 

the 21st Century global innovation economy.’’

39

It is this global economy that has ushered tens of thousands of 

Alabama citizens out of textile, apparel and low-skilled assembly 

occupations. It is likewise this global economy that has bankrupted 

a traditional southern economic development strategy based on 

cheap land and cheap labor. We all know there is cheaper land and 

cheaper labor elsewhere in a global economy, and we have the relatively new phenomenon of having even cheaper skilled labor elsewhere around the globe. 

At the same time that many Alabama citizens suffer from such 

job loss, globalization is bringing vast new opportunities to those 

in our State who are prepared for them. Although this transformation has already quietly begun, the Mercedes project brought 

new attention and emphasis to Alabama as a player in the global 

economy. Now our State is approaching almost 50,000 employees in 

the automotive sector alone having added more than 100,000 workers to the civilian labor force in the last 3 or 4 years. Alabama is 

not only creating jobs; it is creating good jobs as evidenced by our 

State’s recent gains in relation to national per capita income. We 

have experienced growth not only in the automotive sector but in 

other advanced manufacturing sectors, such as aerospace, aviation, 

shipbuilding, as well as high-tech services sectors, such as health 

care and finance. 

Practically every month brings a new record low in unemployment. Throughout my life, growing up in rural south Alabama, the 

question has always been, where are the jobs? Increasingly, in recent times, the question has become, where are the workers? And 

now the question is, where are the workers with the skills I need 

to do the jobs that I have? So we are engaged in a massive effort 

to help our people transition from that old cheap-land/cheap-labor 

economy to a 21st Century innovation economy of advanced manufacturing and high-tech services. 

In order to compete, businesses must be more innovative and 

productive, which requires utilizing more technology, which requires higher worker skill levels, which requires more and better 

education and training on all fronts. We are attacking the education and training imperative in many ways. We are implementing what I consider to be the most comprehensive and integrative certification program in the country. We are adding State resources for Alabama Industrial Development Training, our nationally top-ranked training program for new and expanding industry. 

We are engaged in K-12 reforms, as everyone is, such as the Alabama Reading Initiative, STEMs initiatives. We are working with 

over 200 companies and incumbent worker training programs, but 

we definitely need the Federal Government’s continued investment 

in our people if we are to succeed. 

What would be the nature and extent of that involvement? Some 

general recommendations that I would make would be that all Federal workforce development programs should be developed as part 

of a comprehensive, integrated, holistic array of services that complement one another as opposed to isolated, stand-alone programs 

designed by various agencies for various populations with various 

purposes and various requirements. 

We still have a ways to go, in my view, to achieve our Workforce 

Investment Act’s seamless delivery system. I think we must inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:41 Oct 03, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-15\34138.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
40

creasingly recognize and provide incentives in the development of 

career lattices and ladders which begin at levels commensurate 

with the skills that workers possess and move them up with concurrent or intermittent work and training in high-growth, high-demand, high-paying industry sectors. 

Likewise, we must deliver education and training outside the 

normal academic calendar and delivery system. When workers at 

Avondale Meals lost their jobs last year, most did not have the luxury of going back to school for 2 years even if we paid for it. They 

had mortgages and car payments due the next week and the following week. We must compress training when possible, and we 

must deliver it in ways that allow people to work concurrently. 

These people certainly did not need a retraining schedule consisting of a 1-hour class on Tuesdays and Thursdays and a 1-hour 

class on Mondays and Wednesdays. That comes from a former community college administrator. 

We must customize our options for individuals, and we must 

push decisions to the degree we can about the appropriateness of 

training programs and training facilities to the level closest to the 

customer. We must employ professionals rather than practitioners 

to accomplish this. 

Finally, I think the public workforce system, regardless of whatever programs are being considered, must be better connected to 

business in meaningful ways if we are to truly meet the skill needs 

and the skill demands of a 21st Century economy. 

I will defer my other remarks in the interest of time to the written record, and I will thank the committee for allowing me to appear before you today. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Dr. Alford follows:]

Prepared Statement of Tim Alford, Ph.D.,

Director, Office of Workforce Development 

Mr. Chairman, other distinguished members of the Committee: It is my honor and 

pleasure to appear before the Committee to share my views on the effectiveness of 

existing federal programs in helping workers impacted by international trade. I do 

so from the vantage point of a state director of workforce development who has responsibility for leadership, oversight, and coordination of all such programs. Therefore, I am a generalist and claim neither particular experience nor expertise in the 

minutia of regulations, eligibility criteria, or other such issues related to the dayto-day administration of such programs. 

I come here from the convoluted vantage point of a former teacher, principal, superintendent, college administrator and instructor, economic developer, small business owner, business consultant, and mayor. I also come here as a first generation 

college student whose single-parent mother worked in the sweat-shop shirt factories 

of rural south Alabama in the 1940s, 50s and 60s to make a subsistence living for 

us. I point this out to let you know that I have a heart for those hard-working persons who are adversely impacted by international trade as well as the escalating 

workplace skill requirements in our nation and in my state in particular. I think 

the Southern Regional Education Board said it best when it stated: ‘‘It is as if many 

of our workers dozed off by the wood stove and awakened by the microwave * * *’’ 

unprepared or underprepared for the skill demands of a 21st century global, innovation economy. 

It is this global economy that has ushered tens of thousands of Alabama citizens 

out of textile, apparel, and low-skill assembly occupations. It is likewise this global 

knowledge economy that has bankrupted a traditional southern economic development strategy based on cheap land and cheap, unskilled labor. We all know there 

is cheaper land and cheaper labor elsewhere in a global economy; there is even the 

relatively new phenomenon of cheaper skilled labor. 

41

At the same time that many Alabama citizens suffered from such job loss, globalization was bringing vast new opportunities to those in our state who prepared for 

them. Although this transformation had already quietly begun, the Mercedes project 

brought new attention and impetus to Alabama as a player in the global economy. 

Now our state is approaching almost 50,000 employees in the automotive sector 

alone—having added more than 100,000 workers to the civilian labor force in the 

last 3-4 years. Alabama is not only creating jobs, it is creating good jobs as evidenced by our state’s recent gains in relation to national per capita income. We have 

experienced growth not only in the automotive sector but in other advanced manufacturing sectors such as aerospace, aviation, and shipbuilding as well as high tech 

service sectors such as healthcare and finance. Practically every month brings a new 

record low in unemployment. 

Throughout my life in south Alabama, the question has been ‘‘Where are the 

jobs?’’ In the past few years, it has increasingly become ‘‘Where are the workers?’’ 

and now it is ‘‘Where are the workers with the skills I need?’’

So * * * we are engaged in a massive effort to help our people transition from 

that old ‘‘cheap land, cheap labor’’ economy to a 21st century innovation economy 

characterized by advanced manufacturing and high tech services. In order to compete, businesses must be more innovative and productive which requires utilizing 

more technology which requires higher worker skill levels which requires more and 

better education and training. 

We are attacking the education and training imperative on many fronts. We are 

implementing what I consider to be the most comprehensive, integrated career readiness certification program in the country. We are adding state resources for Alabama Industrial Development Training—our nationally-number-one-ranked training 

arm for new and expanding industry. We are engaged in K-12 reforms such as the 

Alabama Reading and STEMs initiatives. 

But we definitely need the federal government’s continued investment in our people if we are to succeed. What should be the nature and extent of that involvement? 

I would make some general recommendations in response to that question and I will 

be more specific if you have questions. In my view: 

1) All federal workforce development programs should be developed as part of a 

comprehensive, integrated, holistic array of services that complement one another 

as opposed to isolated, stand-alone programs designed by various agencies for various populations with various purposes and various requirements. We still have a 

ways to go to achieve your WIA vision of a seamless delivery system. 

2) I think we must increasingly recognize and provide incentives in the development of career lattices and ladders which begin at levels commensurate with the 

skills that workers possess and move them up with concurrent or intermittent work 

and training. 

3) Likewise, we must deliver education and training outside the normal academic 

calendar and delivery system. (When workers at Avondale Mills lost their jobs, most 

did not have the luxury of going back to school for 2 years—even if we paid for it. 

They have mortgages and car payments due next week.) We must compress training 

when possible and we must deliver it in ways that allow people to work concurrently. (These people certainly do not need a re-training schedule consisting of a 

one-hour class on Tuesdays and Thursdays and a one-hour class on Mondays and 

Wednesdays.) 

4) I think we must customize options for individuals. In the old linear paradigm 

in which you learned, then earned, then retired, many of these programs sufficed. 

Now as constant and pervasive job churning escalates and skill requirements constantly increase, we must develop individual education plans that truly support lifelong learning in the midst of work. 

5) To the degree possible, I recommend you push decisions about the appropriateness of training programs and training facilities to the level closest to the customer. 

6) To put all this together, we must employ professionals, not practitioners. They 

should be trained, certified, evaluated and compensated accordingly. They must be 

connected to reliable and valid labor market information and they must help our 

citizens connect with jobs leading them to self-sufficiency. (I can show you Career 

Centers with the same programs and staffing patterns that achieve entirely different results principally because of one’s dedicated, dynamic professionals.) 

7) Finally, I think the public workforce system, regardless of whatever programs 

are being considered, must be better connected to businesses in real and meaningful 

ways if we are to meet their needs and thus help our people meet the skill demands 

of our 21st century economy. 

Before coming to my current job, I was mayor of Enterprise, Alabama—a town 

of 25,000 people adjacent to the Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker in south Alabama. (Yes, it’s the same Enterprise that was ravaged by a tornado three weeks 

42

ago, killing 9 people—8 of whom were high school students—and destroying an elementary school and the high school as well as 500 homes.) Once before in its history, the area’s cotton-dependent economy was ravaged by the boll weevil, forcing 

the farmers to diversify their crops and leading them to peanuts which became a 

better cash crop. As a result, the City Council erected a monument to the boll weevil 

in middle of Main Street. On one level, it stands as a slight source of embarrassment. One another, it is a proud testimony to turning adversity into opportunity. 

I think the boll weevil story is a perfect metaphor for our U.S. competitiveness 

as bound up in its workers. The economic transitions have brought great hardships 

and will continue to do so. But if we cushion that to the degree that we can while 

developing the national sense of urgency and political will to answer these challenges—it might just be a boll weevil. 

If properly conceived and integrated, continuation of Trade Act Assistance can 

play a vital role in this regard. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Ms. Lee. 

STATEMENT OF THEA LEE, POLICY DIRECTOR, AFL–CIO 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Chairman Miller, members of the committee, Mr. McKeon, for the opportunity to come today to talk 

about this important issue on behalf of the 10 million working men 

and women of the AFL-CIO. 

We are very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss ways to 

strengthen, reform and effectively fund the programs that help 

workers impacted by international trade that are so important to 

our members and to all American workers, but I wanted to start 

by making a broad distinction between two very different sets of 

policies. That is the economy-wide set of policies that we need to 

create and retain good jobs in the U.S. economy that are full-employment, macro-economic policies; strong labor market policies 

that protect worker rights on the job; fair trade policies to ensure 

that our workers, domestic producers and farmers have a fighting 

chance to compete and thrive in the global economy; and the appropriate tax currency, infrastructure, health care and education policies that create the solid foundation for national competitiveness 

with a high-road economic strategy. Those are the important jobcreating policies that we need to put in place. 

The second set of policies are those we are talking about here 

this afternoon, which are much more limited in scope but of great 

importance to workers as well, and those are those policies that 

provide a cushion of income support to displaced workers and help 

facilitate the transition to a new job, maybe even to a new occupation, and ideally, these programs would equip workers with the 

skills and training they need to move into good jobs. 

What I wanted to make clear is that these two are not substitutes for each other. We cannot fund dislocated worker programs 

and think that we have put in place good trade policies. We need 

to do both of those things, and the first set of policies are crucial 

to achieving that, and there are two points that I wanted to make 

in general. 

One is that both of these sets of policies should be part of a coherent, national, good job strategy. That should be the lens through 

which we look at all of these sets of policies: Are they helping us 

to create good jobs here at home? 

43

The second part is that there are resource constraints as we 

think about the displaced worker and assistance training. We do 

not live in an ideal world with unlimited dollars to spend, so we 

have to be very careful about how we set priorities for the kinds 

of programs we put in place, and we have to make sure that these 

programs are as effective as possible. My written testimony covers 

three specific programs: the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, 

unemployment insurance and wage insurance. And I will just briefly go over the key points on each of those. 

The TAA program, of course, is an important and useful, necessary program. It will always be a part of what we need in any 

modern economy, but that program needs to be expanded, reformed 

and fully funded, as several people here have mentioned today. In 

terms of the expansion of the eligibility criteria, as I think Bruce 

Herman and others have mentioned, we need to expand to make 

sure that all workers who lose their jobs due to trade are covered, 

including those who lose their jobs to a shift in production to a 

country not currently covered under the TAA program, countries 

that do not necessarily have a free trade agreement, like China, for 

example. And also, TAA should cover service and public sector 

workers who lose their jobs due to trade. And we have to ensure, 

of course, that the funding is sufficient to help all of the eligible 

workers. 

Funding is a crucial point, as Bruce Herman also said, that funding needs to be made secure and adequate. Mr. Bevard said earlier 

in his testimony that he qualified for the TAA training, but the 

money ran out at the State level, and he, therefore, was not able 

to get the training that he was entitled to and that he deserved. 

And that is unconscionable. I think we really do need to make the 

TAA program an uncapped entitlement and make sure that the 

funds are there so that every worker who qualifies for training gets 

that training and is able to take full advantage of the programs 

that are put in place. 

The program administration, of course, needs to be improved. 

There has been a lot of criticism of the Bush administration’s 

Labor Department administration of this program by the Court of 

International Trade, where 90 percent of the cases that have been 

remanded to the Court of International Trade have been sent back 

to the Labor Department as erroneous denials of eligibility for 

workers. That there simply was not an adequate job done, not a 

competent job done in terms of determining eligibility for those 

workers, has created some unconscionable delays. 

The Secondary Worker Program in principle exists, and yet very, 

very few workers have been able to take advantage of that because 

the program has not been well designed. Only 2 percent of workers 

covered by TAA were secondary workers in fiscal year 2003. That 

is the most recent year for which we have data because the Labor 

Department simply has not provided those. 

We also need to ensure that there is a key role for the State employment security and the unemployment insurance system, that 

the outreach, counseling, case management, skill assessment, 

training referral and support services should be using State UI 

agency staff and that this program is administered using merit 

44

civil service staff. That is very important and would ensure the 

quality. 

We talked about timely and accurate reporting. We do not have 

the basic numbers we need on the TAA program, any piece of it, 

whether the health care piece, the alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance piece or even just what happens to the workers who go 

through this program, and that is something that should be fixed 

in the near future. There are good programs that should be expanded that promote partnerships between government employers 

and labor to support job retention and creation as well as regional 

economic and community development. 

We share a lot of the concerns, just in closing, on the wage insurance program that have been discussed, and the concerns are in 

three categories: whether it is part of a good job strategy or whether the wage insurance program is really designed to encourage 

workers to take low-paying jobs with few benefits and few opportunities for on-the-job training as quickly as possible rather than help 

workers develop the skills they need and take the time they need 

to move into good jobs where there are strong career ladders and 

strong training opportunities. 

The second piece is whether the funding of wage insurance will, 

in the end, come out of the existing unemployment insurance and 

Trade Adjustment Assistance programs. We know that is the intention of many people who have proposed this. Congressman Weller 

proposed a bill, H.R. 1513, just last week where that was precisely 

the proposal, which was to fund the wage insurance program out 

of the State UI trust fund. And we have a strong objection to taking funds out of the programs that need to be strengthened, improved and fully funded in order to put them into a program where 

we have serious questions about what we know about the wage insurance proposal, whether it promotes actually downward economic 

mobility, whether it subsidizes low-wage employers rather than 

high-wage employers and whether it really does provide workers 

with the kind of career ladder and training that they need. At the 

end of that 2 years, what happens to the workers who have been 

in the wage insurance program? 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to come here today, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Lee follows:]

Prepared Statement of Thea Mei Lee, Policy Director, AFL–CIO 

Thank you, Chairman Miller, and members of the Committee, for this opportunity 

to testify today on behalf of the more than 10 million working men and women of 

the AFL-CIO on the effectiveness of programs to help workers impacted by international trade. We are very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss ways to 

strengthen, reform, and effectively fund these programs, which are so important to 

American workers. However, we also wish to note that these programs are not a 

substitute for good trade policies that create and retain good jobs in the United 

States. 

We would like to address three specific programs in today’s testimony: Trade Adjustment Assistance (including the Health Coverage Tax Credit), Unemployment Insurance, and Wage Insurance. 

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

The TAA program should honor the promise made to workers since 1962: that the 

federal government will provide retraining, reemployment assistance, and income 

support to workers who have lost their jobs due to federal trade policies. 

45

The Trade Act of 2002 made significant changes to the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program. TAA provides income protection, a limited health care benefit, 

and job training for qualified workers who lose their jobs as a result of import competition or certain shifts of production overseas. 

Unfortunately, many laid-off workers are still not eligible for benefits, and others 

do not receive the benefits to which they are entitled. The program must be expanded and improved to ensure that trade-affected workers receive appropriate income support and training to smooth their transitions to new jobs. 

TAA should be expanded to cover all workers who lose their jobs due to a shift 

in production, regardless of where production was shifted. The current convoluted 

eligibility criteria exclude many workers whose jobs have shifted to countries like 

China, with which we do not currently have a free trade agreement or other preference program. 

TAA should also cover service and public sector workers who lose their jobs due 

to trade, and we must ensure that funding is sufficient to help all eligible workers. 

Funding Must Be Increased 

1. The lack of a dedicated source of funds has caused many problems, including 

long waiting lists and denial of training to displaced workers. 

Workers injured by trade must not be denied benefits because of inadequate funding. 

Studies have shown that many states exhaust their TAA training funds before the 

end of each fiscal year, preventing numerous workers from being able to take advantage of training programs to which they are entitled. According to the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO), 35 states expected that available TAA training funds 

for FY 2004 would not cover the amount they would obligate and spend for TAAeligible workers—18 states estimated the gap at over $1 million.1

2. We must provide full funding for the TAA program—TAA should be an uncapped entitlement. 

TAA training funds are capped at $220 million per year, while Trade Readjustment Allowances (income support) is an entitlement. Since 2004, TAA training has 

lost $32 million in inflation-adjusted funding (a loss of 16%). 

3. The Bush Administration’s proposed cuts to TAA benefits will impair opportunities for long-term training. 

The FY 2008 budget proposes to decrease funding for income support benefits 

under TAA, assuming that fewer workers will take advantage the program next 

year. The 2008 budget proposes inflation-adjusted cuts of $124.7 million in TAA 

benefits funding compared to 2006. 

There appears to be little basis for the Bush Administration’s assumption that 

there will be a reduction in TAA participants of almost 6,000 workers in FY 2008 

compared to FY 2006. The number of workers covered by TAA certifications has increased over the past two years. In 2005, 117,904 workers were certified for TAA—

in 2006, there were 120,199 workers certified.2 Certainly, the trade deficit, especially in manufactured goods, is trending up for the foreseeable future, given the 

enormous imbalance between current imports and exports. 

4. Income support should not be reduced, but improved. 

Currently, eligible trade-injured workers do not begin to receive trade readjustment allowances until their unemployment insurance entitlements have been exhausted. The amount of their cash benefit is the same as the most recently weekly 

UI benefit (average $260/week). 

Prior to 1981, workers received weekly cash benefits in the form of trade readjustment allowances and UI combined that were equivalent to 70% of their prior pay, 

up to a maximum of the average manufacturing wage. Pending improvements in UI 

for all unemployed workers, restoring the 70% wage replacement benefit as a minimum benefit would significantly remedy this shortcoming. The average weekly 

earnings of production workers in manufacturing for 2006 were $690.83. Seventy 

percent of that is $483.58. 

Program Administration Must be Improved 

1. Inadequate administration of TAA denies benefits to eligible workers and 

causes unnecessary and unwarranted delays in delivery of benefits. 

In the past five years, courts have entered numerous orders directing the Department of Labor to reconsider erroneous denials of TAA income and training assistance to hundreds of trade-affected workers. Workers have suffered protracted delays 

in getting assistance as a result of these errors. Many more become discouraged or 

lack the resources to pursue appeals. 

The Court of International Trade has criticized the Labor Department for relying 

so heavily on employers, virtually to the exclusion of petitioning workers, for inforVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:41 Oct 03, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-15\34138.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
46

mation on TAA petitions. DOL investigators rarely contact petitioning workers to 

seek additional information, documentation, or clarification. 

Judge Delissa Ridgway in an August 2006 opinion states that ‘‘investigators seem 

almost gullible in their willingness to accept at face value virtually anything an employer says—typically without even confronting the employer with other, conflicting 

information provided by petitioning workers (or sometimes the employer itself).’’

She goes on to say that ‘‘DOL’s persistent failure to verify the accuracy of the information on which it relies—as well as its pattern of turning a blind eye to obvious 

inconsistencies and discrepancies in the record before it—is beginning to verge on 

contempt for administrative and judicial process, and does a grave disservice to the 

hardworking men and women of this country.’’

‘‘Extrapolating workers’ roughly 90% ‘rate of success’ before the court to the hundreds of TAA petitions that are denied but not appealed every year suggests that 

the Labor Department’s failure to properly investigate petitions is routinely depriving thousands of U.S. workers of the TAA benefits to which they are legally entitled. 

The Labor Department should be haunted by that fact. * * * Those statistics are 

a scathing indictment of the Labor Department’s administration of the TAA program.’’ 3

2. Help for secondary workers is minimal and must be improved 

In 2002, the TAA program was expanded to cover secondary workers, such as 

parts manufacturing workers who lose their jobs when a client-manufacturing firm 

moves its operations to another country. Poor program design and inadequate guidance to identify affected workers, however, have meant that few secondary workers 

are receiving benefits. 

• Just over 2 percent of workers covered by TAA were secondary workers in FY 

2003. 

• No state has developed procedures to identify workers who are secondarily affected by a trade-related layoff in another state.4

We must enact provisions that ensure full consultation with workers and their 

unions in the petition process. We must also develop industry-wide certification to 

streamline the petition process and to ensure that all workers in an affected industry are served. 

There Must Be A Key Role for the State Employment Security/ Unemployment Insurance System 

1. We must ensure and fund critical outreach, counseling, case management, skill 

assessment, training referral and support services using state UI agency staff. 

In its early evaluation of TAA implementation, Social Policy Research Associates 

noted that assessment is ‘‘usually limited’’ and ‘‘wrap around services are much less 

common in TAA.’’ 5 There are no funds in current TAA to pay for counseling, testing, 

assessment, and support services that provide workers with the help they need to 

make informed decisions regarding training. In the past, when Employment Service 

resources were more substantial, states were expected to use these resources to pay 

for such services. 

2. We should also ensure that the state Unemployment Insurance agency administers the TAA and TRA program using merit (civil service) staff. 

This will assure greater access to services for workers, greater accountability to 

the public and TAA participants, and improve tracking, record keeping and program 

reporting. 

The state Unemployment Insurance agency can identify workers whose jobs are 

affected by trade and offshoring; ensure that workers receive assistance in filing for 

the Health Coverage Tax Credit; counsel and refer workers to appropriate training; 

receive advance notice of a closing or layoff; and help to identify any training shortfalls. 

3. We must implement timely and accurate reporting. 

The Labor Department needs to provide timely, accurate and substantive data on 

specific TAA programs and services. We must establish a statutory requirement for 

monthly reporting of: 

• Specific geographic locations which are the sources of imports; 

• The new locations of companies who have shut down 

and left the United States; 

• Information on the affected company, the location, the number of affected workers as well as union representation; 

• State Rapid Response contacts to affected companies, workers and unions; 

• Outreach, enrollment, service delivery and outcome information for workers 

who are eligible for adjustment services; 

47

• Performance measures for adjustment programs that include impacts on preand post- program wages, earnings and benefits. 

Do Not Expand the Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance Program 

1. Wage insurance is not the best way to help dislocated workers or bolster a national ‘‘good jobs’’ strategy. 

• Wage insurance promotes ‘‘rapid reemployment’’ by inducing displaced workers 

to accept lower-paying jobs with few benefits, thereby promoting downward economic mobility. 

• Wage insurance may serve to subsidize low-wage employers and is unlikely to 

lead to skill development or strong career ladders. 

Link Training to the Creation and Retention of Good Jobs 

1. We must support economy-wide strategies that focus on creating and maintaining good jobs. 

Our goal should be to create jobs with good wages and benefits; match qualified 

workers with those jobs; and support the efforts of workers to qualify for those jobs. 

We must create early intervention and community adjustment programs that involve all stakeholders, including organized labor, in addressing the effects of dislocation. 

2. We need to expand programs that promote partnerships between government, 

employers and labor to support job retention and creation, as well as regional economic and community development. 

We must support training that leads to good jobs, including on-the-job training, 

as well as model labor-management industry/sector initiatives that have proven successful in saving jobs, improving employment outcomes and making industries more 

competitive. 

TAA programs must be closely linked with community economic revitalization and 

adjustment programs, as well as early intervention efforts, including community 

economic planning, finance programs, technology development and deployment programs 

There are many positive examples of high road labor-management sector partnerships in manufacturing (e.g. the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership), health 

care (e.g. AFSCME District Council 1199 upgrade training program in Philadelphia), telecommunications (e.g. ‘‘The Alliance’’ administered jointly by CWA and 

AT&T) and aerospace (e.g. The Boeing and Machinists Union ‘‘Quality Through 

Training Program’’). 

Through the collective bargaining process, these partnerships develop plans to assess employer skill needs, analyze the skills gap, and implement programs that create career ladders and train workers in high-growth, high-wage occupations. 

We are particularly optimistic about the Apollo Alliance—a coalition of labor, 

business and environmental groups whose focus is on the development of ‘‘green collar’’ jobs that foster sustainable economies, energy independence, and healthier communities. The Alliance is working to create jobs in manufacturing, construction and 

transportation. 

These ‘‘green collar jobs’’ produce environmentally friendly products or services, 

like construction of green schools, solar panel manufacturing, energy efficiency retrofits of homes, or environmental clean up and restoration. These jobs provide family-supporting wages, skill development, and career ladders. 

Fro example, in Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell is promoting and developing renewable energy to attract wind, solar and battery manufacturing to the state. He 

has attracted companies that have taken closed steel mills and created good jobs 

building wind turbines. 

Improve the Health Coverage Tax Credit under the TAA Program 

The TAA Reform Act of 2002 created the Health Care Tax Credit (HCTC) to assist 

certain recipients of TAA and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) beneficiaries to receive affordable health care. The program provides an advance, refundable tax credit for 65 percent of the cost of qualified insurance. The credit can also 

be provided when the individual’s tax return is filed. The IRS administers specific 

components of this credit: enrollment, payment and compliance. DOL, through ETA 

and state workforce agencies, and the PBGC have responsibility for determining eligibility for HCTC. 

1. Problems with administration of the HCTC: 

• A 2004 report by GAO 6 found that only a small portion of the workers and retirees identified as potentially eligible receive the HCTC. GAO also addressed the 

issue of the lag time in coverage as it impacts participation: ‘‘health coverage may 

not be affordable both in terms of an individual’s ability to pay the entire premium 

48

amount while waiting to receive the advance HCTC and the ability to pay the 35 

percent share once payment starts.’’ • A 2006 GAO 7 report on five trade-related plant closures stated that no more 

than 12% of the workers at each site received the credit and that at 4 of the 5 sites 

fewer than half the workers who visited a one-stop center were even aware of the 

existence of the health care credit. • An OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessment of the IRS’s administration of the credit gave the program a ‘‘NOT PERFORMING: Results Not 

Demonstrated’’ rating. The PART cited low participation in the program and the 

‘‘lack of shared or coordinated performance goals with its main partners, DOL and 

PBGC.’’ The 2006 program improvement plan recommends that the participating 

federal agencies work together to develop goals and improve access to the tax credit 

for eligible workers. 

• A December 2006 Urban Institute report 8 found that only 12 states as of October 2005 had ‘‘gap filler’’ NEG grants (a DOL/ETA program) to help workers pay 

for COBRA while they waited for their HCTC premiums to be subsidized. 

2. Address Gaps in Coverage 

Delays in TAA processing and in PBGC pension takeovers can mean laid-off workers and retirees have lapses in coverage that disqualify them from receiving consumer protections necessary to get coverage. The program should address both the 

requirement that workers and retirees have 3 months of coverage in the months 

preceding when they seek to enroll in coverage [unclear: with the credit and the 

HIPAA requirement that individuals have no more than a 63-day lapse in coverage]. 

To fix this, 

• Clarify that an individual must have had 3 months coverage immediately prior 

to the event that gave rise to HCTC eligibility (layoff for TAA, retirement for 

PBGC); 

• Start the 63-day clock upon receipt of HCTC eligibility notice measured five 

days after the notice is mailed 

3. Increase Affordability 

Studies have found that even with a 65% subsidy, many eligible individuals could 

not find affordable coverage. The subsidy must be increased and coverage must be 

available that is affordable both in terms of premiums and out-of-pocket costs. 

To do this: 

• Increase the subsidy to 90%, or less if coverage option is available that is comprehensive and affordable (e.g., FEHBP-like coverage with rating restrictions; see 

below); 

• Clarify that individual market coverage is allowed only where enrolled in that 

coverage 30 days prior to layoff. ‘‘Arrangement with an insurer’’ was not intended 

to open up the individual market, as Administration has interpreted it; 

• Provide fallback plan through FEHBP plans (separate pool from federal employees); 

• Require community rating of state-based options. 

4. Other needed improvements 

• Spouse coverage—allow spouse to remain eligible when HCTC recipient qualifies for Medicare; 

• Align COBRA with TAA—extend COBRA coverage to length of HCTC eligibility 

so that individuals don’t have to change coverage in those states where HCTC eligibility exceeds COBRA’s 19 months; 

• Provide WIA National Emergency Grant funding—to ensure interim coverage, 

• Workers who lose their jobs often lose health care. As a result, it is important 

to link eligibility for HCTC directly to eligibility for TAA services and benefits. A 

TAA eligible worker should be eligible for the HCTC program for the period that 

they remain eligible for any part of the TAA program, including training, TRA, job 

search, job relocation or ATAA. 

UI MODERNIZATION

As you know, we are strongly supporting Representative McDermott’s UI legislation, which would distribute as much as $7 billion from the federal UI trust funds 

over five years to encourage states to modernize their UI programs. For many years, 

the AFL-CIO has advocated for several of the specific items in this legislation, 

which we believe would make significant progress towards strengthening the UI system. 

Under Representative McDermott’s proposal, one-third of the maximum grant 

amount available to each state would be distributed if the state counts workers’ 

49

most recent wages for purposes of determining UI eligibility. Using such an ‘‘alternative base period’’ would address one of the most significant gaps in UI coverage 

by expanding eligibility for predominantly low-income workers who have paid into 

the UI system and earned qualifying wages. The AFL-CIO participated in the Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation (ACUC), which recommended this 

particular reform in 1996, and since then we have consistently supported legislation 

to establish incentives for states to use an alternative base period. 

The remainder of the maximum grant amount available to each state would be 

distributed if a state meets two of three additional conditions: (1) it provides extended unemployment benefits for workers enrolled in state-approved job training; 

(2) it provides for the UI eligibility of workers seeking part-time work; or (3) it provides for the UI eligibility of workers who quit their jobs due to compelling personal 

circumstances (domestic violence, caring for a disabled family member, or following 

a spouse who has been relocated). 

First, we believe that providing incentives for states to support workers enrolled 

in training programs for high-demand occupations is an especially good idea that 

fits within a broader strategy of helping workers get good jobs. Similar programs 

in seven states have produced impressive outcomes with regard to employment and 

wage replacement. 

Second, the ACUC also recommended promoting UI eligibility for workers seeking 

part-time work, and since 1996 the AFL-CIO has consistently supported legislation 

to establish financial rewards for states that adopt this reform. 

Third, providing incentives for states to accommodate workers’ compelling personal circumstances recognizes and rewards groundbreaking reforms that are especially important to women with families. 

Finally, Representative McDermott’s bill would distribute to the states a total of 

$100 million per year over five years for the purpose of administering these reforms 

and making other improvements in the administration of the UI and Employment 

Service (ES) system. Since 2001, federal funding for administration of the UI system 

has been cut by $305 million in real terms despite increasing demands on the system. 

Representative McDermott’s proposal correctly rewards states that have been 

leaders in building a stronger UI system, and incorporates some of the best UI reforms that have been pioneered in the states. We applaud the Representative 

McDermott for taking this initiative and we look forward to working with him to 

enact this bill. 

While Representative McDermott’s proposal is an important step forward, we realize that it does not address all the shortcomings of the UI program. For example, 

much more needs to be done to restore UI eligibility to a higher percentage of the 

workforce, to restore higher benefit levels, to repair the dysfunctional extended benefits (EB) program, and to address the severe under-funding of UI and ES administration. The National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) has recommended a special distribution of $2.4 billion over three years for administration 

of the ES/UI system, and this figure does not take into account the additional administrative needs arising from this legislation. 

WAGE INSURANCE

Representative McDermott has also asked us to comment on proposed legislation 

costing approximately $3.5 billion per year that would create a universal wage insurance program for displaced workers—far larger than the small pilot program 

within the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program that is available only to 

certain workers over 50 years of age who lose their jobs because of trade. There are 

three main points I would like to make about this proposal. 

1. Wage insurance does not fit within a ‘‘good jobs’’ strategy. 

America is hemorrhaging good jobs, wages are stagnating, and the system of employer-provided health and pension benefits is being eroded. America is in dire need 

of a good jobs strategy. Such a strategy should strive to create good new jobs; to 

transform bad jobs into good jobs; to improve the effectiveness of programs that connect workers with the good jobs that are available; and to improve the effectiveness 

of job training and education programs that help workers qualify for those good jobs. 

A strategy to ensure that good jobs are available in the first place must include 

(1) balanced monetary and fiscal policies to promote full employment; (2) robust investments in communications and transportation infrastructure; (3) a national strategy to revive the manufacturing sector, including investments in technology development and dissemination, currency policy reform, and repeal of tax subsidies that encourage off-shoring of manufacturing jobs; (4) trade policies that discourage downward competition in wages and benefits and the off-shoring of good jobs; (5) sectoral 

50

strategies in emerging sectors of the economy, such as renewable energy technologies, building on successful labor-management models in manufacturing, hospitality, telecommunications, and health care; (6) economic development initiatives; 

and (7) policies that promote worker rights and collective bargaining, higher wages, 

and improved health care and retirement security. 

Wage insurance does not help workers get good jobs. On the contrary, the most 

frequently invoked rationale for wage insurance is that it promotes ‘‘rapid reemployment’’ by encouraging workers to look for, consider, and accept lower-paying jobs 

they would not otherwise take.9 Getting workers to take bad jobs does not fit within 

any good jobs strategy we would propose. 

In fact, getting workers to take bad jobs is not a worthy objective at all. Our national focus cannot be rapid reemployment to the exclusion of job quality, because 

this would argue for the elimination of all assistance for displaced workers. It is undoubtedly true that eliminating all assistance for displaced workers would result in 

more higher-skilled workers finding reemployment more quickly at Wal-Mart and 

McDonald’s, but this would hardly be a desirable outcome for higher-skilled workers, for the lower-skilled workers they displace, or for the economy as a whole. 

Helping workers find rapid reemployment in good jobs is a worthy objective, but 

our priority should be job quality. It is possible to reconcile job quality with rapid 

reemployment: for example, the Clinton administration created a grant program to 

provide reemployment services for UI claimants, but the Bush administration defunded the program in its FY 2006 budget. In addition, the Employment Service 

(ES) provides workers with information they need to find good jobs that match their 

skills, and in 2000 the Labor Department noted that every $1 spent on reemployment services produces $2.15 in savings to the UI trust funds.10 But the Bush administration cut ES funding by $256 million in real terms between 2001 and 2007. 

To the extent that a wage insurance program diverts resources away from ongoing 

efforts to help workers get good jobs, or to improve that assistance, it amounts to 

giving up on workers. Even if wage insurance is funded with new revenues, this is 

money that could be used to create good jobs and help displaced workers get those 

jobs. 

Proponents of wage insurance sometimes argue that the existing job training programs do not work. It is true that some job training programs—particularly the less 

costly shorter-term training promoted under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)—

are less effective than others, but there are also many examples of effective training 

programs. The answer is to improve the effectiveness of job training programs, not 

to encourage workers to forego job training. 

Proponents of wage insurance routinely argue that wage-subsidized workers 

would receive on-the-job training of a higher quality than that provided by training 

programs.11 We know of no basis for this argument. In fact, lower-wage employers 

are the least likely to offer on-the-job training that provides transferable skills. 

Research has established that the probability of workers receiving workplace education is directly proportional to their wage and education levels. Workers with the 

highest wages and the most formal education receive the most extensive workplace 

education, while workers with the lowest wages and least education receive the 

least extensive workplace education.12

Workers who accept lower-wage employment because of wage insurance are likely 

to be no better off at the end of their eligibility period. They will have foregone any 

opportunities to engage in a more fruitful search for a good job or to improve their 

skills or education level to qualify for a good job. As a result, we are concerned that 

the earnings potential of many participants could be negatively affected. Oddly 

enough, it is often the proponents of wage insurance who emphasize that education 

and training are the key to ensuring that the gains from economic growth are 

shared more broadly.13

2. Advocates of wage insurance have proposed diverting resources from already 

under-funded programs serving displaced workers. 

We understand that Representative McDermott has no intention of substituting 

wage insurance for existing programs that assist displaced workers. However, this 

is precisely what other advocates of wage insurance have proposed. 

Wage insurance has repeatedly been proposed as a substitute for the UI program.14 At a May 4, 2006 hearing of this subcommittee, the Bush administration 

proposed legislation that would permit the diversion, without limitation, of state UI 

trust funds to pay for wage insurance.15 In fact Representative Weller has introduced legislation, H.R. 1513, that would do just that. 

Then last September a paper commissioned by the Hamilton Project proposed diverting two-thirds of aggregate UI funding to pay for wage insurance.16 And just 

last month the Bush administration again included the same legislative proposal in 

its FY 2008 budget.17

51

Wage insurance has also been proposed as a substitute for the TAA program. The 

conservative Heritage Foundation has proposed replacing the TAA program in its 

entirety with wage insurance.18 Sen. Baucus (D-MT) alluded to such proposals in 

May 2002: ‘‘There are those who would like to abandon traditional TAA entirely in 

favor of wage insurance. If this experiment [the TAA pilot program] succeeds, that 

may be just the course we decide to take in a few years.’’19

We are concerned that resources may be diverted away from TAA and the UI-WIA 

system if workers’ choices are structured so that they ‘‘choose’’ wage insurance over 

alternative forms of assistance. This choice will not be a meaningful reflection of 

worker preferences, however, if the alternatives to wage insurance are rendered unattractive or inaccessible. Already, workers who want to enroll in TAA job training 

are being denied access due to funding shortfalls, and the Bush administration’s 

proposed TAA regulations would restrict access even further. Funding shortfalls and 

the Bush administration’s emphasis on rapid reemployment are already limiting access for non-trade-affected workers who want to enroll in quality WIA job training, 

and the administration’s proposed WIA regulations would restrict access even further. 

The supposed cost advantages of wage insurance would create an incentive to 

structure workers’ choices in this way. Some advocates of wage insurance argue that 

it would be less costly per worker than TAA.20 Others conclude that wage insurance 

would be less costly per worker than UI.21

We are especially concerned that workers’ choices would be structured in this way 

because of the known philosophical preference, on the part of some, for promoting 

rapid reemployment without any consideration of job quality. Critics of the UI-WIA 

system and TAA have traditionally argued that the availability of income support 

and job training creates a ‘‘moral hazard’’ that encourages workers to stay unemployed longer. By contrast, the leading argument for wage insurance is that it would 

counter this ‘‘moral hazard’’ by encouraging workers to take lower-paying jobs that 

they would not otherwise search for, consider, or accept, and thereby reduce the duration of their unemployment spell.22

The issue of rapid reemployment is certain to arise when Congress next considers 

extending federal unemployment benefits during a recession. We know exactly what 

these debates look like. In 2001, 2002, and 2003, opponents of an extension argued 

that unemployment benefits prolong unemployment, and used inflated numbers to 

claim that laid-off workers already receive generous amounts of assistance. If this 

pattern repeats itself, the existence of a wage insurance program designed to promote rapid reemployment will be used as an argument against extending jobless 

benefits. And if this argument is successful, wage insurance will substitute for, rather than complement, unemployment benefits. 

We fully appreciate that Representative McDermott has no intention of financing 

his wage insurance proposal through the unemployment payroll (FUTA) tax system. 

Instead, his proposal would be financed through a new dedicated payroll tax of 0.1 

percent of wages up to the taxable wage base of the Social Security program, which 

is currently $94,000 per year. But if there is bipartisan agreement on the design 

of a wage insurance program, we question whether it is realistic to expect defenders 

of the UI system to prevent the diversion of UI resources by insisting on an increase 

in payroll taxes. 

It would be especially unfortunate if wage insurance were financed by revenues 

from extension of the 0.2 percent FUTA surtax. The FUTA surtax is scheduled to 

expire in December 2007, but for the last two years the Bush administration has 

proposed a five-year extension. The surtax generates $7.4 billion over five years. We 

believe that any additional revenues from unemployment payroll taxes should be 

used solely to fund modernization of the UI system, and not for wage insurance. 

3. Further study would be necessary to resolve the many unanswered questions 

about a universal wage insurance program—including potential harm to workers. 

There has been remarkably little research into the possible consequences of a universal wage insurance program, and the empirical data on wage insurance is scarce. 

Our only real experience with wage insurance is with two pilot programs—one a 

short-lived pilot in Canada and the other an ongoing pilot with the TAA program. 

Further study would be necessary to resolve the following issues: 

To what extent would a universal wage insurance program shorten unemployment 

spells? Although rapid reemployment is the leading rationale for wage insurance, 

there has been relatively little study of this question. The Canadian pilot program 

showed only a small impact on unemployment spells.23

To what extent would a universal wage insurance program induce workers to accept lower-wage employment they might otherwise refuse? In 1995 the Upjohn Institute performed the only economic modeling to date on wage insurance and conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:41 Oct 03, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-15\34138.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
52

cluded that it ‘‘would induce dislocated workers to search harder for jobs and accept 

employment that they might otherwise refuse.’’24

Would these lower-paying jobs lack benefits such as health insurance? We know 

that workers who collect unemployment benefits, by contrast, are more likely to find 

a new job with employer-provided health insurance.25

What portion of wage subsidy recipients would have taken lower-paying jobs even 

without the subsidy? Some proponents of wage insurance argue that its purpose is 

to provide income support for workers who would take lower-wage jobs even without 

the subsidy, while acknowledging that it will induce some workers to take lowerpaying jobs.26 However, it is unknown what portion of subsidy recipients would take 

lower-paying jobs even without the subsidy. The smaller the portion of recipients 

induced to take bad jobs, the less the potential harm to workers. 

To what extent would the employment of wage-subsidized workers displace other 

workers? The Upjohn Institute’s economic modeling found that the employment 

gains from wage insurance came almost completely at the expense of employment 

for other workers.27 If wage insurance turns out to be simply a game of musical 

chairs, encouraging workers laid off from highly-paid jobs to take lower-paying jobs 

that would otherwise go to workers with less skill and experience, then it raises serious equity concerns. 

To what extent would employers provide subsidized workers with on-the-job training? Proponents of wage insurance regularly argue that wage insurance acts as a 

subsidy for employers to provide on-the-job training.28 But Representative 

McDermott’s proposal contains no requirement that employers provide any on-thejob training at all. Wage insurance is a particularly poor policy choice for subsidizing on-the-job training. The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) required that 

on-the-job training lead to a progression of job skills and higher wages, with protection against displacement of other workers, and that labor organizations be consulted so that subsidized training met quality standards and linked workers to good 

jobs. 

To what extent would any on-the-job training given by employers provide transferable skills? Again, we know of no basis for the claim that employers of wage-subsidized workers would provide better on-the-job training with transferable skills. 

Representative McDermott’s proposal contains no requirement that on-the-job training lead to a progression of skills or higher wages. 

To what extent would a large-scale universal wage insurance program subsidize 

low-wage employers such as Wal-Mart? If wage insurance advocates are correct that 

wage insurance acts as a subsidy to employers, recipients of the subsidy would be, 

by definition, lower-wage employers. And the amount of the subsidy would be greater for employers such as Wal-Mart that pay lower wages than their competitors, 

such as Costco. 

To what extent would employers be able to capture the subsidy by paying subsidized workers less than they would otherwise? Wage insurance can act as a subsidy for employers only if employers are able to pay program participants, or other 

employees, less than they would otherwise pay. It is sometimes assumed that employers will not know the identity of workers who are eligible for wage insurance, 

but this assumption is questionable. Any employer would be able to identify former 

Boeing workers after a Boeing layoff in Seattle, or former Delphi workers in Flint, 

Michigan, or former employees of any large employer whose layoffs are publicized. 

To what extent would wage subsidies lower wages for non-recipients? Subsidized 

employers might further benefit from a reduction of wages resulting from an increase in the total labor supply29 or from an increase in the number of workers willing to work for lower wages. 

To what extent would the availability of a program designed to promote ‘‘rapid 

reemployment’’—such as wage insurance—be used as an argument against strengthening programs serving displaced workers that have historically been attacked for 

prolonging unemployment? To what extent would it enable critics of programs serving displaced workers to make them less accessible or less attactive? 

CONCLUSION

We strongly support Representative McDermott’s proposal to strengthen and modernize the UI system, and we look forward to working with him to enact this legislation. We believe available budgetary resources should be dedicated on a priority 

basis to a good jobs strategy, which includes strengthening the UI program and 

other severely under-funded programs that provide assistance for displaced workers. 

But we believe it makes little sense to divert scarce budgetary resources away from 

a good jobs strategy towards proposals that are specifically designed to induce workers to take lower-paying jobs. And further study would be necessary to determine 

53

whether a universal wage insurance program adversely affects workers by promoting downward economic mobility, diverting resources away from severely underfunded programs that serve displaced workers, subsidizing lower-wage employers 

such as Wal-Mart, and causing job loss for lower-skilled workers. 

ENDNOTES

1GAO, Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain, GAO-04-1012, 9/22/04. 2 Congressional Budget Justification Fiscal Year 2008

3 Judge Delissa A. Ridgway Slip Op. 06-132 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL 

TRADE 4GAO, Trade Adjustment Assistance: Reforms Have Accelerated Training Enrollment, but Implementation Challenges Remain. GAO 04-1012. 9.22.04. 5Social Policy Research Associates. What’s Up with the National Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, www.spra.com 6GAO-04-1012. September 2004

7GAO-06-43. January 2006

8Stan Dorn, J.D. Take-Up of Health Coverage Tax Credits: Examples of Success in a Program 

with Low Enrollment. Urban Institute, December 2006 9See, e.g., Howard Rosen, Testimony Before the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human 

Resources (May 4, 2006) (‘‘Wage insurance is specifically designed to encourage people to return 

to work sooner than they might have otherwise’’); Robert Litan, Lael Brainard, and Nicholas 

Warren, ‘‘A Fairer Deal for America’s Workers in a New Era of Offshoring,’’ Brookings Institution (May 2005) (‘‘A main purpose of wage insurance is to accelerate the pace at which permanently displaced workers are reemployed’’). 10Stephen Wander and Jon Messenger, Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services Policy 

Workgroup: Final Report and Recommendations, U.S. Department of Labor (2000). 11See, e.g., Lael Brainerd, Testimony Before the Joint Economic Committee (February 28, 

2007) (‘‘The retraining that a displaced worker receives on a new job provides new skills that 

contribute directly to his or her performance in the new job and is thus directly useful not only 

to the worker but also to the new employer’’); Howard Rosen, Testimony Before the Ways and 

Means Subcommittee on Human Resources (May 4, 2006) (‘‘In addition, it is hoped that the new 

employer will provide on-the-job training, which has proven to be the most effective form of 

training’’); Robert Litan, Lael Brainard, and Nicholas Warren, ‘‘A Fairer Deal for America’s 

Workers in a New Era of Offshoring,’’ Brookings Institution (May 2005) (‘‘The retraining that 

displaced workers receive on a new job is the best kind * * * in sharp contrast to generalized 

training programs such as those available under TAA’’). 12See Ahlstrand, Bassi, and McMurrer, Workplace Education for Low-Wage Workers, W.E. 

Upjohn Institute for Employment Research (2003). 13See, e.g., Prof. Lawrence Summers, Testimony Before the Senate Finance Committee 

(March 8, 2007) (‘‘It is particularly important that investments [in education] be made to ensure 

all of our citizens have a chance to fully participate and share in our prosperity * * * I believe 

it is also appropriate that consideration be given to thinking about methods of wage insurance’’); 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor Mason Bishop, Testimony Before the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources (May 4, 2006) (‘‘the data * * * shows the gap that is emerging 

in our country between those that have post secondary educational attainment. That is not just 

4-year degrees. It may be 2-year degrees, industry-recognized certifications, licenses, et cetera, 

apprenticeship programs * * * That is how people’s wages are going to rise * * * We have 

many, many individuals who, with better access to post secondary education and training, could 

get higher wages’’). 14See, e.g., Robert Reich, ‘‘Despite the U.S. Boom, Free Trade Is Off Track,’’ Los Angeles 

Times (online) (June 18, 1999) (‘‘Turn unemployment insurance into wage insurance. Unemployment insurance was originally intended as temporary income support during economic 

downturns, until the old jobs returned. But it is less relevant today, when most workers who 

lose their jobs never get them back. Their major worry is that the new job will pay less’’); Timothy Kane, Heritage Foundation, Transcript of Hearing of the Ways and Means Subcommittee 

on Human Resources (May 4, 2006) (‘‘I would want to encourage the states to experiment with 

radical freedom on how they do UI and wage insurance’’). 15 Unemployment Compensation Program Integrity Act of 2006 (May 3, 2006) (‘‘The Secretary 

of Labor may waive the requirements of * * * the Social Security Act to permit an exception 

to the requirement that money withdrawn from the unemployment fund of the state be used 

solely for the payment of unemployment compensation’’ if the waiver will assist in ‘‘accelerating 

the reemployment of individuals who establish initial eligibility for unemployment compensation’’); ‘‘Administration Wants UI Income Maintenance Strategy Waivers,’’ Employment and 

Training Reporter (May 15, 2006) (‘‘The Bush administration is asking Congress for authority 

to grant waivers of federal unemployment insurance policies that would allow states to implement novel strategies aimed at accelerating claimant reemployment * * * Deputy Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training Mason Bishop told the subcommittee * * * ‘Perhaps states 

would subsidize new-hire wages through wage insurance,’ he said’’) 16 Jeffrey Kling, ‘‘Fundamental Restructuring of Unemployment Insurance,’’ The Hamilton 

Project (September 2006). 17 U.S. Department of Labor, ‘‘FY 2008 Budget Justification of Appropriation Estimates for 

Committee on Appropriations,’’ (February 2007), at SUIESO 25-26. 18Denise Froning, ‘‘Trade Adjustment Assistance: A Flawed Program,’’ The Heritage Foundation (July 31, 2001) (‘‘The current TAA program has failed to provide effective assistance, one 

of the crucial factors for a successful adjustment program. If the aim of such programs is to 

54

help workers find new jobs, then the TAA should be eliminated over time and replaced by a 

program that provides incentives, not disincentives, for workers to do just that. Wage insurance 

is one such proposal that has won widespread support’’). 19Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record (May 2, 2002), at S3795. 20Lael Brainerd, Testimony Before the Joint Economic Committee (February 28, 2007) (‘‘On 

a per worker basis, this cost falls midway between the current unemployment and retraining 

benefits available under UI and Worker Investment Act (WIA) programs and the comprehensive 

costs of TAA benefits’’); see also Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record (January 4, 2007) (‘‘Wage 

insurance * * * can even save money over traditional Trade Adjustment Assistance.’’) 21 Howard Rosen, Testimony Before the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources 

(May 4, 2006) (‘‘Wage insurance is also a less expensive form of assistance than unemployment 

insurance’’). 22See, e.g., Lori Kletzer, ‘‘Hamilton Project Media Call on Income Stability Among American 

Families’’ (September 12, 2006) (‘‘Part of its genesis came around in thinking about unemployment insurance itself. That is, unemployment insurance has a recognized distortion in the sense 

that you only collect UI if you remain unemployed. So there’s a whole labor supply disincentive. 

Well, if one becomes eligible for wage loss insurance, only when you become reemployed, then 

there’s a counter to that distraction * * * So it can counter the disincentive * * * More jobs 

look interesting or possible in the presence of wage insurance because if somebody who is making under $50,000 a year has to think about going from a job with tenure to a reentry job, with 

wage insurance, those jobs start to look a little more attractive. Jobs that were spurned won’t 

be so spurned * * * it’s a program that actually addresses in very important ways some issues 

that are out there regarding unemployment durations and job search’’); Howard Rosen and Lori 

Kletzer, ‘‘Reforming Unemployment Insurance for the 21st Century Workforce,’’ The Hamilton 

Project (September 2006) (‘‘Wage-loss insurance has some clear roots in the literature of optimal 

UI policy design, most clearly as a response to moral hazard concerns arising from a UI-recipient worker’s reduced incentive to leave unemployment due to a reduction in the net return to 

securing a job’’); Jeffrey Kling, ‘‘Meeting the Challenges of the Global Economy,’’ Brookings Institution Transcript (July 25, 2006) (‘‘Receipt of UI benefits encourages longer unemployment 

spells * * * The new system [of wage insurance] would also introduce incentives to reduce unemployment * * * by creating stronger rewards for finding another job quickly’’). 23 Bloom, et al. ‘‘Testing a Reemployment Incentive for Displaced Workers: the Earnings Supplement Project,’’ Social Research and Demonstration Corporation (May 1999), at 39. 24 Carl Davidson and Stephen Woodbury, ‘‘Wage-Rate Subsidies for Dislocated Workers,’’ 

Upjohn Institute (January 1995). 25 Heather Boushey and Jeffrey Wenger, ‘‘Finding the Better Fit,’’ Economic Policy Institute 

(April 2005). 26 Jeffrey Kling, ‘‘Meeting the Challenges of the Global Economy,’’ Brookings Institution Transcript (July 25, 2006) (‘‘The new system [of wage insurance] would also introduce incentives to 

reduce unemployment * * * by creating stronger rewards for finding another job quickly’’). 27 Carl Davidson and Stephen Woodbury, ‘‘Wage-Rate Subsidies for Dislocated Workers,’’ 

Upjohn Institute (January 1995) (‘‘But the simulations also raise the possibility that the gains 

for dislocated workers could come at the expense of other groups of workers; that is, other 

groups of workers could experience small increases in employment duration, and decreases in 

employment levels, that almost fully offset the gains for dislocated workers’’). 28 Joint Economic Committee, ‘‘Meeting the Challenge of Household Earnings Instability’’ 

(March 2007) (‘‘Perhaps most importantly, wage insurance would subsidize the hiring and training of workers who transition into new jobs or sectors’’); Lael Brainerd, Testimony Before the 

Joint Economic Committee (February 28, 2007) (‘‘Wage insurance can act as a subsidy of onthe-job training for the worker’s new employer’’); Robert Litan, Lael Brainard, and Nicholas 

Warren, ‘‘A Fairer Deal for America’s Workers in a New Era of Offshoring,’’ Brookings Institution (May 2005) (‘‘The second critical value of wage insurance is that it acts like a training subsidy for the new employer’’); Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record (January 4, 2007) (‘‘Wage insurance provides an incentive for employers to hire lower-skilled and older workers and train them 

on the job’’). 29 Jeffrey Kling, ‘‘Responses to Questions About ‘Fundamental Restructuring of Unemployment Insurance’ ’’ (September 2006) (‘‘increases in total labor supply from wage-loss insurance 

may reduce wage levels, in the same manner as any other policy that encourages work’’). 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much, and thank you to each 

of the panelists for your recommendations, your suggestions and, in 

some cases, in your papers, the history of what may have gone 

wrong in a number of these programs in terms of implementation. 

I think that is very helpful to us. 

Again, Ms. Lee, I think you hit it on the head that we are trying 

to view this as one—there is a whole set of issues about growing 

the American economy and how the American economy responds to 

international competition and trade and what we need to do to 

meet that competition. And obviously, this committee is dealing 

with a lot of that in terms of education and the rest of it, but there 

also is, I think, a very clear feeling, I would certainly say in our 

55

caucus on the Democratic side of the House, that the current system simply is not sufficient to justify another round of, essentially, 

the status quo trade agreements; that that bargain will not be reentered into and that we have got to look at the impact of any of 

these trade agreements on workers’ families and their communities. So that is sort of the setting here, but let me begin with a 

question. 

Mr. Dorn, we have two large, relatively easily accessible programs in health care. One is Medicare, and the other is Medicaid. 

Why do we make people chase all around looking for a health care 

program that may or may not meet their needs and, in one of 

which, if you do not do it in exactly the right sequence, you could 

lose your coverage for preexisting conditions, which could be devastating to an awful lot of families, certainly, you know, older families? 

Why do we do this? Why don’t we just plug people into either 

Medicaid, or if they are 55 and over, why don’t we plug them into 

Medicare, and if they turn out not to be eligible, we will deal with 

that down the road? Why are we making people chase around? 

I mean, I think the intent of the health care tax credit and paying for the premiums and all of that is helpful, and it is a different 

situation because there are already Federal dollars in a number of 

these programs, but the complexity to me just has to be devastating to a recently unemployed, long-term unemployed, job-disappearing family to then start to run through and try to negotiate 

all of these various gatekeepers, and again, if you do not do it in 

the right sequence, you go back to ‘‘go,’’ and you have been deeply 

prejudiced as a result of that. 

Mr. DORN. Well, at the time that this passed in 2002, it was not 

easy to get bipartisan agreement on the health coverage tax credit. 

And I cannot imagine there would have been bipartisan agreement 

around a Medicaid expansion to cover these folks. Keep in mind 

that Medicaid is a categorical program for adults. For kids, if you 

are low-income, you get Medicaid. But if you are an adult, you have 

to be pregnant, currently caring for a dependent child, severely and 

permanently disabled or elderly. You could create a new Medicaid 

eligibility category, but the problem is, you would need to think 

about, how are those States going to come up with their share of 

the matching funds? During times of economic downturn, States 

have to live with balanced budget requirements, and when you 

have a State like, you know, North Carolina, for example, where 

they had the pillow textile mills close down, it was devastating. 

The State was not in a position where they could come forward 

with their share of the funds. So, certainly, you could go through 

and create a new Medicaid eligibility category for displaced workers, but I do not know how realistic it would be to expect a State 

to come up with its share of the dollars. You might want to have 

an enhanced Federal match or even a 100-percent Federal match. 

In terms of Medicare, you certainly could go that route, but the 

problem is the benefits are not so great in terms of Medicare. I 

mean, you have very high copayments for doctor visits, for hospital 

care. You know, we do, thankfully, have a prescription drug package right now. You could go down those routes, but you would need 

to tinker with those programs some, and so, in thinking about how 

56

to proceed, I would encourage the committee not to give up on the 

health coverage tax credit. It is a problem, but I think it is a fixable problem. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Ms. Brainard, why don’t you describe how you think wage insurance fits into this scheme? The question was raised whether it 

would allow for a continuation of the health care tax credit. I think 

in your testimony, you suggested that it should be coupled with 

that, and the question is whether it is paid for out of the UI fund, 

the question of whether or not this is an add-on or this is a choice 

or this is a substitute to TAA. 

Ms. BRAINARD. Yes. I think it is really important that, if a wage 

insurance program were instituted, that it would be seen as an additional benefit, that it would be integrated along with the other 

available benefits and available through the one-stop shopping system that could be greatly improved as everybody has suggested because, if it is not, I think we are forcing workers to make choices 

that will potentially lead to more adverse outcomes. 

When this proposal was originally developed, it was prior, actually, to the existence of the health care tax credit under TAA, and 

the original version of it actually did include a health care tax credit that would then carry over to the new employer with the new 

employer potentially picking up the employee part of the premium, 

so there are ways of integrating it with health care which, I think, 

would greatly strengthen it. Again, I think it is critical that it not 

come out of existing funds. I agree wholly with that point. I think 

we are probably talking about different classes of workers, some of 

whom will opt for training because they will benefit a great deal 

from it and others of whom, for reasons that were described, need 

to get back to work, who are already getting back to work much 

more quickly and are experiencing—this is not a program that is 

going to cause people to take lower-paying jobs; 50 percent of permanently displaced workers who are going back into jobs are experiencing average declines in wages of 20 percent. That is, unfortunately, the economic reality. So I think it is very important to add 

it as another option. 

Chairman MILLER. But Mr. Herman raised the issue about eligibility under TAA, that we have got to look at the service sector; we 

have got to look at the people whose job impact is related to the 

loss of, maybe, a primary industry and all of the associated parts 

that are impacted. 

You would assume that those eligibility changes are also part of 

wage insurance? 

Ms. BRAINARD. I think the kinds of improvements that have been 

suggested to TAA are ones that I very much support. I have looked 

at the TAA program in some depth. The eligibility issue is a very 

serious constraint on it at the moment. As to services in particular, 

as we see off-shoring in the services sector, the anomaly that TAA 

does not cover services, I think, is glaring. So, again, I do not see 

the wage insurance program in any way being a substitute for improvements to TAA along the lines that have been suggested. 

Chairman MILLER. You would have the same eligibility requirements? 

57

Ms. BRAINARD. No. I am sorry. I did not understand your question. 

I, actually, do not think, ultimately, that wage insurance should 

have a trade test associated with it. I think it should be available 

to all permanently dislocated workers, workers whose jobs have 

permanently gone away and are certified as having done so by the 

Department of Labor for reasons that are no fault of their own. I 

think, by having it tied narrowly to trade, you end up with the 

same very burdensome eligibility process where, as Thea Lee was 

saying earlier, the Department of Labor ends up kicking out a lot 

of the petitions for eligibility; the process is extremely long-winded. 

I think the case for all permanently dislocated workers to be eligible is as strong as for trade displaced workers to be eligible. 

Chairman MILLER. Unfortunately, I suspect I am just under my 

red light time, so I am going to ask just one more question. 

Mr. Dorn, and I think, Mr. Herman, you would have presumptive 

enrollment. If the jobs disappeared, as to this business of your paying the premiums for what could turn out to be 6 months and all 

of these other things, you would both have sort of presumptive eligibility and enrollment or enrollment as a case for seeking permanent eligibility; is that right? 

Mr. DORN. Well, I do not know about presumptive eligibility. I 

would have to think about that. We do that in the Medicaid program. 

What I was suggesting is, do not force workers to pay health insurance premiums in full before their eligibility is determined. 

Right now, Medicaid, SCHIP, all of these programs take time to determine whether somebody is qualified, but you do not have to 

shell out-of-pocket the full insurance premium while you are waiting for Medicaid or SCHIP to determine your eligibility. I was recommending that we should take the same approach with HCTC. 

Mr. HERMAN. We are in favor of presumptive eligibility because 

one of the really big hurdles—and this is what leads to so few people entering the program—is that upfront cost associated with covering those premiums while your eligibility is determined. That is 

an enormous barrier. All of the studies have pointed to that. That 

should be addressed. 

Chairman MILLER. I will do this in the second round, but on a 

number of occasions in a couple of papers, you talk about people 

who in some instances are getting laid off from $7.00-, $8.00-, 

$9.00-an-hour jobs. There is not a lot of savings in that household, 

and so the idea that you are going to come up with this money—

I do not know, Dr. Alford, what you have found, but we will let you 

address that. I will come back to you in the second round. 

I would like to recognize Mr. McKeon. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is okay with me if 

you forget to set the clock. 

This has been an educational experience for me. I have been in 

Congress here 4 years. I don’t think we have ever held a hearing 

on TAA because the major part of the jurisdiction, to my understanding, falls under Ways and Means and around here people 

don’t like to give up any power. 

Now I talked to the chairman. He said that the chairman of the 

Ways and Means Committee wants him to be involved with this. 

58

So this is something that I look forward to because if we are going 

to have some jurisdiction we are going to have the ability to weigh 

in on this a little bit. It should be an interesting process. 

I was very involved in the WIA, Workforce Investment Act. In 

writing the law and in the reauthorization, we haven’t quite gotten 

it done yet because when we pass it, it goes to the other side, and 

then that is the final, final resting place for, I hope, a lot of legislation that is being proposed now. But we have had that problem 

with it over the years. But one of the visions that I had for the 

Workforce Investment Act, the one-stops, was to give a place where 

somebody could go if they lost their job or if they wanted to get a 

better job or they wanted to get training for career enhancement 

or advancement, and as I visited one-stops I see some really good 

things happening. 

Now it looked to me like where people are falling through the 

cracks there should be a real coordination between these two rather than, like I say, the first time it has even come before us as a 

committee in 14 years. And I thought we were doing all of this 

wonderful stuff for workers, and I find out that there are a lot of 

things that we are not doing. 

Dr. Alford, in your testimony, you have got the most experience 

in the Workforce Investment Act, the workforce development, do 

you think that they should be a part of a comprehensive, integrated 

and holistic array of services that would—that we would be able to 

work together with the TAA? 

Dr. ALFORD. That is absolutely my primary message in being 

here, is that whatever education and training services are provided 

to help these people transition to a new economy, if that is one of 

the major purposes of our education and training programs, we 

have to consider the array of administrivia that is provided. We 

have to consider the consumer and that vantage point. We have to 

consider the business as a customer and that vantage point in this, 

and we have to consider how are those education and training providers providing this training in innovative ways that meet the 

needs of today’s workers. 

Because as I say in my testimony, it is my view that the old linear aid cycle where you learned and then you earned and then you 

retired and rotted is just not how it works anymore. And if we can 

get people who have been dislocated back into employment in high 

growth, high demand and high paying sectors, and in many cases 

if they go under those sectors, these issues such as insurance and 

replacement wages, although there may be short-term reductions, 

if we could deliver their education and training in such a way that 

they could get into construction trades without being an electrician, 

as an example, but could begin by pulling conduit or something and 

then start delivering on-the-job training or apprenticeship training 

or on-line training or training at the end of the shift or training 

at night and on the weekends and those kinds of activities to build 

career ladders, whether we are talking about automotive or aerospace or whatever high growth sector it could be in any regional 

economy, I think we have got to approach it from all three of those 

vantage points to create a good holistic program that really meets 

workers’ needs because if aren’t meeting employers’ needs it is not 

59

going to matter what we do on the supply side of any of this, in 

my view. 

Mr. MCKEON. That is why we have employers sitting on the 

council so that you know what jobs are available so you might as 

well, as long as you are going to be training somebody, it makes 

sense to train them for a job that is going to be there. 

If I may, Mr. Chair. 

You know, the Federal Government is big and to think that we 

have got the Workforce Investment Act, which comes under our 

committee and then this TAA, which comes mostly under Ways and 

Means and sounds like both are attempting to do some of the same 

jobs, but it would sure be nice if we could work together. This 

might, might be an envelope here where there is some opening 

where we could work together because from what I hear, each of 

you have the same goal in mind. Somebody that loses their job, 

that is a traumatic thing, that in and of itself. I mean, I can’t imagine you spend 30 years with a company and the next day it is not 

there. When you started out 30 years ago thinking the job was 

there forever, by the end of 30 years you probably thought it was 

going to be there forever. And the trauma that that would cause, 

if we could have a seamless program that would really help people 

to transition into something else, I think that would be our ultimate goal. That would be a wonderful thing to be able to work together and enhance both of these programs. 

So I am hopeful to be able to do something like that, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. That is our hope. 

I view this—when I said—when I became chairman of the committee, I said this is a committee that is deeply involved with, 

hopefully, the strengthening and the growing of the middle class, 

and obviously we cannot have a policy where people and their families crash to the ground because of circumstances that were beyond 

their control that they lose that status while they are trying to get 

to the next, I don’t know, to the next income, to the next career. 

And we are all looking for that seamless approach in that effort. 

And I think this is rather new that the two committees would be 

working together. 

We obviously administer the Department of Labor, which runs 

these programs, and I worry about a lot of the glitches that have 

been present in the testimony today, and we will hear from them 

later. 

But, you know, the Speaker has been asked very often how was 

she prepared to be Speaker of the House of Representatives. She 

reminds people all the time she was the mother of five and she has 

asked the chairmen to all get along here and help one another out. 

So here we are. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Chairman, years ago, Mr. Hoekstra and I did 

a study and we found one-third of the education programs under 

the study comes under the jurisdiction of this committee. The rest 

of them go under 39 different bureaucracies. Maybe if we can make 

some headway in this one, we can reach out for the education programs, too. 

60

Chairman MILLER. You bait that hook a little bit and right away 

they are on the way. That is what scares the hell out of every other 

chairman. 

Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

If anyone wants to see the effect of our trade policies in the 30 

years that I have been in the Congress, let them come to Michigan, 

particularly let them come to Flint, Michigan. Flint, Michigan had 

190,000 people, now has about 118,000 people. Creates many problems. When people move out of town, they don’t take their homes 

with them. So we have abandoned homes which are targets for 

arson. The town is nothing like it was when I was growing up and 

why dad joined the UAW back in 1936. Michigan has really suffered. There are about 12,000 individuals eligible for TAA there. 

Let me ask this question to Mr. Herman. 

I would like to touch on the disconnect that seems evident between the USTR that should be taking care of the workers who are 

negatively impacted by our trade policies or at least be concerned 

about them, a disconnect between that USTR and the TAA program. 

Are there any efforts to formalize a relationship between the Office of USTR and the Department of Labor so they can work together to ensure that TAA reflects where we want to go with our 

broader trade policy? 

I looked at all of these trade policies as I have been here, and 

I have served with six Presidents and none of them have been right 

on this trade policy as far as I am concerned. Democrat or Republican, they have all been wrong. Is there any connect between the 

TAA people who are concerned about trying to retrain people, if 

there are jobs in the area to train them for, and the USTR. 

Mr. Herman, would you comment? I know you have been to 

Michigan a lot and your people have been there a lot. 

Mr. HERMAN. We certainly don’t see that connection on the 

ground, which is where we have been in Michigan, and it is devastating for the communities like Flint and other communities in 

Michigan. 

The reason that we are advocates for a new and improved TAA 

is we think it is a more robust system that is more in sync with 

the current economic conditions than a lot of the elements of the 

safety net that were developed when losing a job was—you needed 

temporary income support while you transitioned to a job kind of 

like the one you lost. Those days are gone. And Michigan clearly 

reflects that. 

What is needed is that longer period of income support, 2 years 

which is possible under TAA, which will allow you to enter programs like the community college programs to get an associate’s 

degree to really become totally skilled in a new industry. That is 

one of the essential sort of links that is a positive aspect of TAA. 

In terms of that program, TAA, and this relationship to overall 

trade policy, we don’t see much of a connection on the ground and, 

in fact, it is pretty evident that there is a rather stark disconnection. 

Mr. KILDEE. And will that be helpful if we could establish that 

somehow or encourage it somehow. 

61

Mr. HERMAN. It would be useful in order to understand the impact on local and regional economies that come about as a result 

of trade policies. I think those linkages are not sort of identified in 

a very comprehensive way during the negotiation and establishment of trade policies. And in some ways the programs, then, that 

we have to work with, like TAA, are sort of asked to fix the negative impacts. But often those negative impact are not foreseen with 

any kind of advanced notice and we are playing catch-up very 

much, and that is certainly the situation that we are seeing in 

Michigan. 

Mr. KILDEE. One of the disadvantages that Congress has, it is its 

own fault because it gives up its own authority, is the so-called fast 

track. And fast track is up this year for reauthorization, where the 

President sends the trade agreement, which the USTR negotiates 

without input from even the Department of Labor, and we can’t 

even amend it. And I think that Congress, it should reassert itself 

and say we would like to be able to amend and put some of these 

things into these trade agreements because they lack them right 

now. 

I don’t know how—I have talked to the various Trade Representatives, and even those who think they are really sensitive people 

don’t realize, really, what they are causing with Maytag there in 

Illinois, what they are causing in Michigan. And I think we have 

an opportunity this year to turn down the fast track. But if you can 

help us in other ways to encourage some cooperation between Department of Labor and USTR when these things are being negotiated, that would be helpful to this committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I can’t help but notice that we have, in our practice of your side selecting some witnesses and our side selecting 

some witnesses, we have skewed the normal balance here a little 

bit. I trust these are all very fine witnesses, but I hope this isn’t 

a sign of things to come. 

Dr. Alford, I was looking briefly at the notes that we have, and 

I see you are from Enterprise and apparently were a teacher, instructor, and principal and so forth. I note that Enterprise has suffered from pretty horrific damage in the schools there. I don’t know 

if that was close to your home. I hope not. I certainly hope that 

you and your family came through that well. That was pretty horrific and just heart wrenching to see what happened to the high 

school there. 

I also notice that you are from Auburn. If you are anything like 

my son-in-law, it is pretty obvious when you walk in the house—

I keep trying to counsel him on that. 

We are trying to—we are exploring a lot things here. Mr. Kildee 

talked about trade policy itself, and his opposition to trade promotion authority, of course, is a reason he is on that side of the 

aisle and I am on this. I very much hope that we do have trade 

promotion authority, fast track. And certainly in places like Minnesota and your State of Alabama and Tennessee and others, the 

economy and job situation is quite different than what he has described in Michigan. 

62

Dr. Alford, we have heard some testimony today about the value 

of career counseling and we talked about a one-stop shop. Could 

you tell us how if someone is a dislocated worker in Alabama, what 

do they do if they want access to career counseling? How do they 

get it? 

Dr. ALFORD. Well, we have created what we have called the 

Workforce Development Planning Council, which is an interagency 

council that develops our comprehensive plan for workforce development in cooperation with the workforce and State Workforce Investment Board and ultimately goes to the Governor. And one of 

the things we strive to do within that is to determine where people 

are falling through the cracks to the degree that we can, and see 

if there are ways we can close those gaps. 

On career counseling, for instance, we now have—our WIA career 

counseling component is administered by the community colleges. 

And for those who find themselves in circumstances where they 

need career counseling and they are dislocated workers or workers 

otherwise in distress, whether they are eligible for intensive services or any of those kinds of terms that we tend to invent and these 

kinds of things, we can get them to a career counselor who is an 

employee of that community college in whatever district the worker 

lives. 

And so it is—interagency partnerships are the way that we are 

addressing those kinds of issues so that we can’t require everyone 

to come and have meaningful career counseling. 

But in our rapid response activities to workers’ dislocations, we 

let them know that that is available to them either through WIA—

and we have the community colleges in that region there to let 

them know that if they are not eligible under any of these programs, you can still get good career counseling based on good labor 

market information from a career counselor at the community college itself. 

Mr. KLINE. So it would be all dislocated workers would have that 

access, at least? 

Dr. ALFORD. All Alabama citizens. 

Mr. KLINE. A rapid response. 

Dr. ALFORD. Yes. 

Mr. KLINE. How does that work? 

Dr. ALFORD. When there is a significant layoff or plant closing, 

they require the—the bases are required to notify our office. We 

have a team of people who go out and meet with the leaders of that 

business. If there is union representation, the union leadership is 

included. We then schedule small group meetings with those employees who are going to be affected by the layoff, in which we tell 

them all about their benefits and what will be available to them 

and how they can convert their health insurance—whether that is 

effective as a means of conversion is another question—but unemployment insurance and how to access all of those kinds of things 

and the programs and activities that this committee and others of 

Congress provide for. 

And as a part of that, we would introduce them to community 

college people in that district and let them know what services are 

available there, including career counseling. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you very much. 

63

Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Hare. 

Mr. HARE. Just for the record, I think we have a group of wonderful witnesses. So thank you, thank you all for coming. 

I just want to, if I could, single out Dave Bevard. Dave is from 

my district and Gail is from my hometown. And thank you, Dave, 

for getting up at 2:30 this morning to fly out from the airport on 

a very bumpy ride with me. 

I talked a lot about Maytag in my hometown because I am extremely troubled at what poor treatment that workers at Maytag 

has. And I agree with Mr. Kildee in terms of trade agreements. We 

have to get something that starts standing up for ordinary people. 

And I think that Congress has a responsibility, a moral responsibility to you and your family and those 2,500 workers, to have a 

say in what happens. 

I would like to talk to you about something that we talked about 

on the plane coming in, and I know that Dr. Alford talked about 

the high-growth sectors that you and I were talking about. People 

were encouraged to go into health care, fields that were growing, 

and you were explaining to me some of the problems that people 

had in Maytag in going through some of that growth into those 

high-growth things. 

And I wonder if you would care to elaborate, share with the committee a little bit about that. 

Mr. BEVARD. The first critical thing is what are you going to do 

with the rest of your life. And to be honest, the retraining is all 

great; and the question everybody asks is, what am I retraining 

for? And there are not a lot of good answers. They will tell you, in 

our instance, health care is a growing field and I know that that 

is the case. Not in our area. But it is a growth field. So you sign 

up for the schooling, and in our case there were like 400 people 

that wanted to go into health care. And a lot of communities, they 

wouldn’t have the educational facilities to be able to accommodate 

400 people. In our case, we were lucky that they did. 

The problem was once you get through the training, the actual 

classroom part, you go in for the clinicals where you actually go on 

the job somewhere, and due to the available facilities there are 

openings for 25 people. 

So there are 375 people that have signed up for a job growth 

area that can’t get into it. And once you sign up for a TAA program, you are locked in. You don’t switch. You are locked into that 

program. 

So, again, the question is where am I going. What am I 

transitioning into, because every area that they tell me—you know, 

first it was the computer industry, then it was the health care, and 

every one of those things we are seeing outsourced almost as fast 

as they can tell us it is a growth area. And, again—so there is just 

a problem with the training that is available. 

I know, for example, there is a great shortage of nurses in the 

country right now, over 1 million nurses that we are going to be 

needing over the next year. So they are saying it is a growth industry, and that is great, except in most areas, the United States as 

a whole, we don’t have enough classroom facilities to be able to accommodate that. 

64

However, right now in India, they are putting out nurses like no 

tomorrow through their educational classes and training, and then 

giving them crash courses in English and sending them over to 

take our jobs again. 

So where am I going? You know, point me in a direction where 

there is a job that I don’t have to play leapfrog every 2 or 3 years. 

Mr. HARE. If you could, maybe for the committee and to remind 

me again, you were talking about a woman who came out at the 

plant that trained and wanted to go into a field and——

Mr. BEVARD. Sure. Again, since the unemployment benefits and 

the training don’t coincide in our case, you started off 3 months behind. So now what program do I compromise myself? And for example, there was one young lady—unfortunately, all of the educational institutes just take it as an opportunity to collect some 

quick money. She wanted to go into child development which is 

usually a 2-year associate’s. Her clock was ticking so she tried to 

get into a 1-year certification. When we called the educational—one 

of the facilities there, they said we don’t have that 1-year certification there. In fact, they dropped most of theirs. They said, How 

about we suggest cosmetology? We said, That is all well and good, 

but that is a far cry from child development. Why cosmetology? 

They said, Well, it is a 1-year certification; sign her up. 

So, you know, all too often we just herd them through the classes 

so we can say that we did. It looks good on paper. 

Mr. HARE. So let me conclude by asking you, if you had one or 

two things that you would recommend this committee do and this 

Congress do, given what you have seen in your peer counseling and 

what you have seen happen to yourself and your wife, what would 

you have us do? 

Mr. BEVARD. First of all, where are the jobs? I keep hearing 

about the technical and the skilled and the specialized jobs. And 

I am hearing, like in Alabama, the auto industry and things, a lot 

of the things, the technical jobs, aren’t that technical; they really 

aren’t. But where are those jobs and where do we go to find this 

work? 

The other thing, you know, we need the facilities that are available for that, and the other thing is the gaps in funding. That is 

major. When you are forced to just sit and wait hopefully while the 

clock—while the clock is ticking away, and what do you do? So you 

are compromising yourself just from the get-go. 

Chairman MILLER. If I just might. 

Dr. Alford, if you might, this question of plants make decisions 

to close or jobs change, what have you, they really don’t do it with 

knowledge of the other cycles. One of which, of course, is the education cycle and the availability of classes, and Mr. Bevard laid out 

some of that. How do you address that? Because, again, you say the 

linear model in education sometimes doesn’t work with what is 

going on in people’s lives after they receive this news that the job 

has disappeared. 

Dr. ALFORD. Well, we don’t have the authority to dismiss those 

requirements so we suffer from those same issues, because academic years and calendar years and when the time starts ticking 

are often at variance. 

65

One of the things we have done as a State, which doesn’t solve 

the problem but mitigates to some extent, our community college 

system has granted a 50 percent tuition waiver to all dislocated 

workers. And once they are declared eligible—and we have several 

thousand of our citizens that took advantage of that last year. I 

was just reading a news letter that related that on the plane on 

the way up here. 

So that is why that happens to be on my mind. But there are 

some things at the State level that you can do. But I think that 

is probably a regulation. I don’t know if it is statutory or regulatory, but that is something that needs to be brought into consideration to begin that cycle of time with the next traditional academic year and extend it a couple of years. I think that would be 

remedied rather easily. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Bevard, how much notice did you have that 

the plant was going to move? 

Mr. BEVARD. It was a curse and a blessing. They gave us a 2-

year phaseout. 

Mr. MCKEON. So 2 years. Do you have a one-stop in your community? A Workforce Investment Act? 

Mr. BEVARD. Yeah. 

Mr. MCKEON. In communities I have seen, like my area, aerospace, is what has really been hit. And the companies will go work 

with the one-stop and they will set up programs, 2 years. They 

could do a lot in 2 years if they—if you had a good functioning 

workshop. And if you could work to bring these programs together, 

I think we could make some real advancement here. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Heller. 

Mr. HELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly do appreciate 

you putting this panel together, and I am learning a lot as a freshman Member of this body, discussing some of these issues. 

I think that the issues—I represent Nevada and I think our 

issues are a little bit different in a State like Nevada than some 

of my other colleagues are talking about their concerns in their 

States, maybe more mature northeastern States or some of these 

other States that have a more mature manufacturing sector, 

whereas in Nevada we kind of benefit from the Pacific Rim and 

some of these trade policies, and Nevada being so close to California, Oregon, and Washington and the ability to be a hub as a 

distributor—I think, Dr. Alford, you were the one that said the 

question isn’t where are the jobs, the question is where are the 

workers. And that is what our concern is in our State is we can’t 

find the workers. In fact, to the point where entry-level jobs are 

paying double digits now, $10 to $12 an hour. Even fast food chains 

are paying that kind of level because they are competing so heavily 

to get these employees. In fact, our state is advertising nationally 

to get people to come to Nevada to work because we don’t have 

enough employees. 

So I guess my question is, we passed a ballot question during the 

last election cycle that pegged our minimum wage to—index to inflation. It is a dollar above the Federal minimum wage and, that 

being the case, we are looking at the minimum wage being someVerDate 0ct 09 2002 19:41 Oct 03, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\FC\110-15\34138.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
66

where within the next 3 to 5 years, somewhere from $12 to $15 an 

hour. 

I guess I need to be—understand the difference between minimum wage and wage insurance, if you are talking minimum wage 

of that height, because I don’t think wage is the problem in Nevada. I think health insurance is the problem in Nevada. If you 

could address that, anybody on the panel, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. BRAINARD. Wage insurance would be a program that would 

only be available to workers who are, because of permanent dislocation, because of permanent displacement of their jobs, would be 

available only if they experienced a decrease of a significant 

amount in their wages in the subsequent job. So it would help to 

ensure the different minimum wage——

Mr. HELLER. Could you define that, what a sharp earnings loss 

is? 

Ms. BRAINARD. For those workers currently who are getting reemployed following permanent displacement on average, those who 

lose—which is about 50 percent on average lose about 16 percent 

of their income. In manufacturing it is about 20 percent, and in 

services it is about 13 percent. But that is sort of a national average. 

So in Nevada, you may not have the same kind of statistics. You 

may not, in fact, have declines. But that is from a national point 

of view, the averages are about 16 percent overall 20 percent for 

manufacturing. 

Chairman MILLER. Anyone else? 

Mr. HELLER. Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. Mr. Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for having 

these witnesses here today. It has been very informative, there is 

no doubt about it. I want to make a couple of comments. 

I am happy there is such a wide range of folks here today. I really appreciate Ms. Cole’s comments too, as the Chair does, about 

sort of looking at the macro picture as well as specifically TAA in 

this case because I have no doubt that we have got to deal with 

this macro level, too. 

I am also very appreciative of Mr. Kildee’s comments about fast 

track or trade promotion authority, whatever you prefer to use, 

whatever term you prefer to use, because as a new Member of Congress, and as someone who wasn’t academic before I came here and 

was very used to sort of looking at things in sterile terms and statistics and not really, until I was on the campaign trail, did I begin 

to talk to people like Dave Bevard and quite honestly hear the stories of individuals who we—we talk about workers being displaced. 

That is a very clinical term, to say the least. 

There are real people out there suffering; the losers, if you will, 

which I think is a horrible word to use as well. These are real people who are suffering. And we can talk about auto jobs being created in Alabama, and I do want to ask about that, Dr. Alford, or 

we can talk about wages in Nevada being $10 to $12 an hour. 

But my understanding is that 30 years ago there were workers 

in manufacturing industries in the United States who were making 

10 to $12 an hour 30 years ago. What kind of real wages do we 

67

have now relative to 30 years ago? I think that is a really important question that we need to be thinking about. 

We can create new jobs in various States, but how much are 

those workers making per hour, and how does that compare to the 

previous period in American history, even 10 years ago? 

I think what we have seen over time and the statistics bear it 

out, the cold, hard statistics, that we see real declines in wages 

and, obviously, we are talking about different States here. Iowa 

wasn’t doing particularly well in the manufacturing sector as probably many of you—some of you on this panel is aware. 

We have seen a lot of outsourcing of jobs. We have seen a lot of 

jobs that have left Iowa and not necessarily gone to other parts of 

the United States, but have certainly gone to other parts of the 

world. 

I do want to ask Dr. Alford, when you talk about these 50,000 

new auto jobs that have been created in Alabama, what kind of 

wages are we talking about, first of all? 

Dr. ALFORD. I have some data related to that that is actually 

from a presentation that I did a year or so ago, and wage records 

are usually in arrears. We are talking about a couple of years ago. 

But I think the relative picture would be the same. Transportation 

equipment, manufacturing at that time in Alabama had an average 

monthly wage of $4,367. I don’t know how that compares, relatively 

speaking, to the other parts of the country. But that would translate into $50-60,000 on the average for an automotive production 

worker in our State, which is good wages for our State, and that 

is about four times the wages for food services and drinking places, 

which is a DOA designation—and about twice the wages for trade 

contractors and about twice, almost twice, for hospitals as a category. 

So specifically talking about automotive, you know, we have industrial maintenance technicians at Mercedes, and their H.R. Director is on my panel that I referred to earlier, who are making 

$120,000 a year. They have an associate’s degree as a multicraft 

technician. 

So I don’t know on a national scale whether these are good wages 

or not, but for our State, which has traditionally been economically 

depressed and still has a long, long way to go to be otherwise, these 

are good jobs and good salaries. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Are those plants unionized in Alabama? 

Dr. ALFORD. They are not. Some have had union votes and they 

are—they have some effort to do so. As I understand at this time, 

Mercedes has had more than one vote. I am not sure exactly how 

many and——

Mr. LOEBSACK. My time is almost expired. 

I also want to ask you about the success story in Alabama. Is 

that primarily due to Alabama’s policies, or did the TAA programs, 

for example, have anything to do with this? 

Dr. ALFORD. Well, this would be primarily conjecture on my part. 

I don’t have any real research related to that, but I think it is a 

combination of factors: the bids climate and the regulatory climate, 

the availability of workers, the training programs for new and expanding industries, the incentives that were provided to lure these 

companies, and aggressive State leadership, particularly in the 

68

Governor’s Office, to recruit and track those companies. I think 

there is a combination of other things. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. My time has expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for letting me go over. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Yarmuth. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Alford, you used a word in your statement before, the word 

‘‘adminstrivia.’’

Dr. ALFORD. I am not sure if that is a word either. I apologize 

for that. 

Mr. YARMUTH. I was intrigued. 

Dr. ALFORD. What I meant by that is often times we get so much 

junk in these regulations and one program versus another, I call 

it administrivia because many times it doesn’t really speak to the 

true issue; like if you started within 16 weeks and the company 

didn’t notify us to notify you and it is through no fault of your own, 

that is administrivia. 

Mr. YARMUTH. That is a great word. 

Dr. Brainard, you talked about the fact there are only 75,000 

workers a year in TAA. And I was wondering if you could elaborate 

on why you think that is. I mean, I know there is a lot of controversy over how many jobs are actually lost because of trade policies and so forth. But is this a factor that relates to certification 

processes or criteria? Would you elaborate on why you think that 

there are so few? 

Ms. BRAINARD. Yeah. I think the eligibility criteria, first of all, 

are overly restrictive. We have talked a little bit about that. Services is one of the most glaring examples. But then I—the way that 

those eligibility criteria are interpreted by the Department of Labor 

leads to, and I may have the number slightly wrong, but to about 

40 percent of employers that apply for eligibility don’t make it. And 

then beyond that, even of those companies where they are certified 

as eligible, a large majority of the workers associated with those 

often are not certified as eligible even when the companies are. 

So if you look at the recent GAO report that tracked, I want to 

say six plant closings, of those, they talked about a particular plant 

closing where there was a large number of workers that were losing their jobs, but only about a fifth of them were going to be eligible for TAA even though the closing itself had been certified by 

TAA. So the process is extraordinarily cumbersome. And at the end 

of the day, very few workers, relative to what just any commonsense persons might think should be eligible, end up actually being 

eligible. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Is this something that you think relates to vagueness in the way the statute was written or the way the legislation 

was drafted, or is there something that we should be doing to try 

to clarify the criteria? Is that an issue or not? 

Ms. BRAINARD. I don’t know if others want to speak to that. I 

think it is both. I think it is both that eligibility criteria should be 

written more broadly, and secondly, that implementation by the 

Department of Labor should get some oversight and encouragement, so that this is a program that is actually easily accessible 

through the one-stop shopping mechanisms and that all of the benefits that are available through TAA should be clearly put on the 

69

table right away; because the other problem you have is that workers come in and they may get their—they may get their income 

supplements, but they may actually never make it to the training 

piece or they may not get their health care piece because it is complicated. 

And there is a small wage insurance program as part of TAA. 

And it is a very small number of workers that ever qualify for that 

because a lot of the State agencies aren’t even aware of the specifics of that program. 

Ms. LEE. I would agree with what she has said. But there is a 

combination of eligibility criteria that can very easily be expanded 

to include the workers who work in the service sector of the public 

sector, to include the secondary workers, expand the definition of 

secondary workers. But also the program has been administered 

poorly, and it has also been administered very unevenly. 

One of the things that you see is that different States have very 

different levels of takeup rates, and some States are very aggressive in going out and informing workers of what their rights are, 

and they actually have staff whose job it is to help workers get into 

the program. And other States don’t spend the same resources. And 

that is one of the reasons we have said we would like to see the 

UI system administered more uniformly at the national level with 

the merit staff and so on. 

So I think there are a lot of ways you could very easily increase 

the number of workers who are able to take advantage of the TAA 

program. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I am reminded 

by the fact that Maytag is represented here, that in Louisville we 

have a General Electric plant that makes dishwashers, and because of the threat being posed by trade agreements and the threat 

to the loss of that plant, we didn’t lose those jobs. They just renegotiated, forced a renegotiation in which the union went from an average salary—the employees went from an average salary of $17 to 

$18 an hour and agreed to go to $13 an hour to keep the plant 

open. We just skipped right to the 20 percent losses in salaries and 

voided all of the intermediary steps. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

About HCTC, this ridiculously complicated process is just one 

more example why this country, the wealthiest Nation in the 

world, must have a national health care system. Period. I mean, 

then we wouldn’t be going around and around in circles like this. 

I have a question and it is about training. When I was a human 

resources consultant, I did a lot of job placement for high-tech companies and I also would advise—did career counseling for people. 

It was a good way to make some extra money. And in our community, we had a university, it is still there, and they trained people. 

They have this wonderfully fun, wonderful course and degree in 

family counseling. Well, everybody would come to me, all of these 

bright and wonderful young students, with their resumes and 

would say, Now what can I do? And I would say, You go back to 

school and get a degree in something where you can make a living 

or get your master’s or your doctorate and become a counselor. 

70

That school did such a disservice to these kids. They got a new 

president and all, and they changed. 

So who is deciding in these communities, who is deciding what 

to train for? What are the jobs that need to be filled? And, I mean, 

we are paying for this training; who is making these decisions? 

Mr. Dorn, with your—I mean, you do your research and analysis. 

Does anybody have any answers of how we are deciding what jobs 

to train for? 

Mr. DORN. My focus is more on the health care side of things. 

I think other panelists are better able to answer it. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay, Alabama, have at it. 

Dr. ALFORD. In Alabama, those decisions are made by the individual. We hope that they are informed decisions, but our attitude 

is this is America: You have a right to be wrong. And we try to 

counsel for training for the occupations where you are likely to get 

a job and be able to have self-sufficiency for a family. 

But a lot of people make emotional decisions. One of the highgrowth training areas for colleges now is forensic science, because 

everybody watches CSI. Well, there aren’t five forensic science jobs 

in Alabama, probably, you know, that are available. 

So people make a rational decision, but—and we try to counsel 

them away from those, but they have a right to do that from our 

philosophical perspective. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. But if it is Federal taxpayers that are paying for 

their training, I would think there would be, Mr. Chairman, to 

have something put together to know what jobs are available, and 

where, and what those jobs pay. 

Dr. ALFORD. We are doing comprehensive—the Integrated Workforce on Economic Development, strategic plans around regional 

economies, because economies are neither local nor State. So we 

have to do it at the regional level because we are producing, as a 

part of that, what the high-growth, high-demand, high-paying jobs 

are in that region. And we are making those who do career counseling within that aware of that. 

I think it is something that there probably needs to be some debate in our Nation about, just as you see it. This is America. You 

have a right to choose whatever profession you would like. However, if the taxpayers are going to pay for that, then maybe it 

should be one of these top 10—that is a matter of philosophy, and 

we need to talk about that. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Ms. Lee, you have something you wanted to add 

to that. And while you are doing that, I had a question for you and 

it relates to Alabama. 

Are the jobs in California going—California jobs moving to Alabama because they pay less, or is Alabama doing better now in 

having successes because the economy is improving? 

Ms. LEE. Okay. Thank you for the question. 

Let me pick up first on this question of how the choices are made 

about where the training is. Some of the programs that we have 

found to be most successful are the ones where you have a partnership between management, labor, and government—the Wisconsin 

Regional Training Partnership where the employees are part of the 

conversation about which skills are going to be needed, where the 

71

jobs are going to be. And sometimes this is done in a collective bargaining setting, sometimes not. 

But I think Washington State and Wisconsin State, those are the 

areas that we found that take the best of all of the different programs that you get, the combination of the employer involvement 

and the on-the-job training, but that you also have the workers and 

the unions involved and targeting towards particular sectors like 

health care, telecommunications, aerospace, where there can be 

some jobs. 

In terms of the question of Alabama versus California, I think 

that is a tough question. You certainly see some of the same—this 

is an age-old story about mobility of jobs within a country and between countries, whether the lack of unions or the lower wages becomes the draw, in and of itself. And obviously you have to have 

a combination of things. It is not just low wages, but it is also not 

just the high skills or the infrastructure that is important. 

I think you need to find that balance. Certainly we would like 

to see a situation where you never see competition between either 

States or countries on the basis of offering up workers who don’t 

have the right to organize a union, who don’t have the basic human 

rights protected on the job. 

We would like to see that as sort of a minimum set of criteria. 

And then beyond that, the competition that takes place is, one, to 

some extent, normal and healthy and natural. 

But the other thing I think that can be problematic is something 

I think Dr. Alford did mention, which is the tax incentives that different State governments offer to attract jobs and whether that 

gets to be a somewhat destructive competition where States and localities offer huge tax incentives and tax breaks to companies to locate jobs there, and then at the end of the day, they don’t get 

enough out of it; that the jobs don’t always stay around, that they 

aren’t the same kind of jobs that were promised. And so that is 

something that I think there could be some national guidelines and 

limitations on that would be useful. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bevard mentioned nurses coming from other countries. I was 

at the community college the other day and they noted there is a 

long waiting list for people to get into nursing, and we haven’t 

funded the slots and that is a problem. And I appreciate that. 

Is college tuition generally reimbursable as assistance if you 

want to go back to college? 

Mr. BEVARD. Like I say, under TAA, it is not really a cap, but 

kind of a general amount that is allocated per worker, and it is for 

college for a training vocational program, for whatever. But it has 

to be in what they consider a growth industry. 

Mr. SCOTT. You can’t go back to the liberal arts college and go 

into——

Mr. BEVARD. Right. 

Mr. SCOTT. My colleague from California mentioned kind of what 

we are training people for. When a plant closes, there are many 

types of loss. It is not just one job skill set. In selecting what people 

ought to be training for, isn’t there some private sector involvement, like private industry counsel, that helps indicate to people 

72

what jobs are going to be available and what they ought to be 

trained for? 

Anybody want to—Dr. Alford? 

Or Mr.——

Mr. HERMAN. Well, one of roles of the WIA is, indeed, to inform 

through labor market information where the jobs are. It is challenging because, again, there are many communities where we 

don’t see a lot of job creation, or where we see job creation, we see 

it in industries that don’t have family-sustaining wages and benefits. Retail, food services, these are jobs growing in every community. That is why we need to address those jobs that have a ways 

to go to provide family-sustaining wages and benefits like manufacturing was addressed two generations ago. 

Two generations ago, manufacturing jobs were not good jobs in 

the country. They were dangerous, low in pay, and dirty. They became better through public policy, around health and safety, 

through unionization and through support in terms of overall national policies in investing in those industries. That is the trajectory that needs to be applied to some of the other industries, particularly service-sector industries where we don’t see the quality of 

jobs that are sufficient. WIA is the place where that information 

is supposed to come forward through the business involvement. 

We also advocate for, as Thea Lee mentioned, a much more significant engagement in specific industries with labor, with management, with public sectors, with high-road partnerships that can address some of these shortcomings, build career ladders. 

That is part of the reason of the success in Nevada with the hospitality industries. Those jobs in Nevada and in Las Vegas, through 

the work of the Culinary Training Institute, have career ladders 

that allow workers to enter and achieve middle-class status in a 

relatively short period of time. 

That is not the case in a number of the industries in the service 

sector that are now driving our economy. 

Mr. SCOTT. Dr. Brainard and Ms. Lee suggested there are good 

programs and bad programs in terms of placement rates. Is a 

placement rate more of a function of the job training or the job 

availability? I mean, if you have an area of low—of high unemployment, you can train everybody you want, but they are going to 

have trouble getting jobs. And if there is low employment, you don’t 

have to do much at all. People are going to grab them and train 

them. Is a placement a function of unemployment, unemployment 

rates, or quality of the program? 

Ms. LEE. Both. I think it is both. Clearly if you don’t have a job, 

you can’t get blood from a stone. There is no kind of training you 

can get that will create a job out of nothing. But on the other hand, 

you also need good training in many cases, particularly with folks 

who are making a huge career shift. They are going from a different kind of sector. 

The training is important. I think what Bruce Herman said in 

his testimony is also important; that what the research does show 

is that the long-term training tends to have a much higher wage 

per placement rate than short-term training. It is not something 

that is done easily. It is not something that is generally done 

cheaply; that investing in a deeper set of skills tends to pay off. 

73

Mr. SCOTT. Should that training—I think Dr. Alford suggested 

that training really should be part of the overall job training program and not a trade-specific program. 

Dr. Alford? 

Dr. ALFORD. Well, we believe that one of the things we should 

do within all of these programs, and we have redirected our adult 

education, our WIA youth programs, our TAA dislocated worker 

programs, Department of Rehabilitation, all across the board, in 

addition to any job-specific skills that may come out of those, we 

are requiring a career readiness certificate based upon work key 

scores which are developed in the workplace—reliable, valid, proven over a number of years. 

So we in effect want to help our people and ensure our employers 

that they have learned how to learn, so that when this constant job 

turning that is bound to occur in this kind of economy—that we 

can make those transitions more easily, and that they can acquire 

new job-specific skills based upon these underlying job readiness 

skills. 

So that is one issue. 

Another issue that is related to the previous question that I 

think is worthy of consideration by national policy around all of 

these issues is ‘‘make a job’’ versus ‘‘take a job.’’ I think, as Ms. Lee 

said, you can’t take a job that is not there. But I think one of the 

things we need to help our people learn sometimes in these transition processes is that one option might be in a more entrepreneurial vein of making your own job in those kind of circumstances 

rather than just the mindset—as an option—rather than just a 

mindset of I am going to take another job and in a similarly situated environment. That may not be an option. 

So I think entrepreneurial training should be one of the array of 

options that we consider as we move towards reconsideration of 

these issues. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Ms. Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

This has certainly been a very informative and timely hearing. 

And I appreciate the witnesses here today bringing forth all of 

these nuances that really need to be addressed. And I think it was 

quite a valiant effort that the Congress has made with the TAA. 

But in all safety net cases that I found, these holes and gaps, you 

know, can be just as dangerous to families that are looking for 

some security during the time of crisis, particularly when it is not 

a time of their own. And one of the things that I am concerned 

about are the nuances. 

I am concerned about seasoned employees, individuals who have 

been working for companies for years, and what their requirements 

are versus newcomers to the employment arena. You know, you 

just got into the company as a bright-eyed college student. You 

have been there for maybe 2 or 3 years and, bam, the economic climate changes. 

What are their needs versus, you know, someone who is just 

about to get the gold watch and now they are in their mid-fifties 

and somebody is saying, We have got to retrain you. Your kids are 

going off to college. What is it that we embed in this policy that 

74

begins to look at those nuances in a real, real way, in addition to 

all of the other pieces that we are talking about, because this is 

not a one-size-fits-all at all, which is what you are all experiencing; 

and which is what, unfortunately, when you are doing Federal policy, we kind of gloss over. 

I think it takes information from folks on the ground, like you 

folks, to really look at those nuances as we look towards reauthorization, bringing them forward so we can look at the management, 

labor, government structure, which seems to be the partnership 

that would ultimately give us some of the answers we are looking 

for and address those types of issues. 

Let me just ask a couple of questions. 

Coming from New York—and it is good to see you, Mr. Herman. 

I know of your work. I want to know whether the TAA, as it 

stands, is available to all workers. And when I say that, I mean 

is it available to individuals who are in the workforce who may be 

residents of the United States or may be in between status? And 

how do the pressures with respect to the holes in the gaps impact 

on that population, and have we begun to address it? 

And then, finally, what would trigger the Department of Labor—

when we know that a trade agreement has been signed, it looks 

like the climate for a particular industry is in a downward spiral—

how do we react with respect to the individuals who are within 

those industries to begin the conversation around you might want 

to start looking at some options in terms of your career or your job. 

And then just finally, one more thing with that where that is 

concerned. You know, we have had to deal with a lot of corporate 

reorganization and downsizing, which has a very similar effect—or 

corporate corruption—where all of a sudden the whole corporation 

collapses. 

How does TAA address that? How are your organizations addressing those issues, and how can we address that through the reauthorization we are up to? 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. HERMAN. In terms of the overall, how does the program deal 

with the diversity of individuals who are trade impacted? Well, 

right now, it doesn’t do it very well. As you know, I worked in the 

garment industry in New York, which was before the program was 

reauthorized in 2002, and we were confronted with significant layoffs on behalf of new immigrants, predominantly women, sort of 

middle-aged. And it was very difficult to bring them into the program. The program was improved at the last reauthorization, but 

I don’t think that a lot of the barriers that those individuals had—

non-native English speaking, very limited in terms of overall skill 

development, limited levels of formal education—are indeed taken 

into account even by the current configuration of the program. 

That is why in my testimony we advocate for globalization adjustment assistance, which would be a more universal program recognizing that all workers depending on—notwithstanding the point 

at which they are in their career, new entrants, middle career, or 

more senior, are impacted, and sometimes surprisingly, impacted 

by trade. And so they need to have these programs available to 

them, that a longer period of income support is absolutely essential, because the transition requires entire new skill development, 

75

new careers. And also that training, that important element, you 

need to have the training support, the resources for at least 2 years 

of education that would allow folks at least to get the associate’s 

degree, if that is where they are in terms of their educational attainment. 

So it is very challenging, in part because globalization is impacting us universally, if you will, and the program is still very sort 

of too nuanced in that regard. 

Mr. DORN. Could I add a comment about the older workers that 

you referenced? 

The Health Coverage Tax Credit program says it is up to the 

State to arrange whatever private insurance the State wants to arrange. And in a number of States, that means individually medically underwritten nongroup insurance, where the older you are 

the more you get charged, and the sicker you are the more you get 

charged. 

So, for example, in North Carolina in 2004, if you were a healthy young man at age 25, you would have to pay $357 a year for average State-qualified coverage. That is not bad. If you were a 55-year 

old woman, who was a breast cancer survivor in complete remission, you would have to spend $4,000. That is a 35 percent share. 

So factors over which individuals have no control determine what 

they get charged, and that is something I would encourage Congress to examine in this upcoming opportunity to revise the TAA 

program. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much. 

If we can just impose on your time a little bit more if you—oh, 

excuse me. 

Ms. Lee, yes. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to answer the last part of your question about the coordination between the trade policy and the labor market policy, 

and it goes back to what Mr. Kildee also asked earlier on. There 

is very little coordination, and in fact I think there is almost a denial that there are going to be any jobs lost, because the whole 

point of selling the trade agreements is to say that everybody is 

going to be a winner and we are going to create new jobs, we are 

going to be exporting lots of goods to Mexico or to Guatemala or 

wherever it is. And so that prevents us from doing the proactive 

planning that might be needed to say, Well, this industry is probably in the cross hairs, or, This region might lose a whole bunch 

of jobs, and let’s get ready early on to deal with it. 

And one of the issues that we have raised is industry-wide certification that might make it quicker; that when you know a whole 

industry is going to lose a lot of jobs because of trade policy, then 

you could facilitate that instead of waiting for each individual plant 

and each individual worker to receive that certification. So I think 

that would be one improvement, and it goes back to—and the question you asked about the coordination. 

The Bush administration budget for this year assumes that there 

will be 6,000 fewer workers receiving TAA next year than there 

were this year. Now, that is at a time when the trade deficit is 

growing every year and is likely to grow for the foreseeable future. 

So how the Labor Department comes up with that estimate, when 

76

we know that the trade policy is going in the other direction, is another baffling piece. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much. 

One of the more remarkable paragraphs, Mr. Herman, was written by you when you asked the question: What do we mean by complexity ‘‘during a typical dislocation involving TAA, many workers, 

often hundreds of workers, must be advised of their rights and responsibilities, learn about training options, enroll if appropriate, 

apply for HCTC or an alternative trade adjustment assistance; if 

desired, get training waivers if needed; apply for unemployment insurance, or TRA, on a weekly or biweekly basis. Assessments are 

supposed to get done. Work search rules are explained, and a job 

search must be documented. Class attendance must be documented. Recorded mental health and social services needs must be 

addressed. The 8- to 16-week rule requires TAA-certified workers 

to enroll in training by the end of the 16th week of his or her layoff 

from the trade-affected employment or the end of the 8th week 

after the week of the TAA certification decisions covering his or her 

workplace. Many workers find out about TAA too late, especially 

when the certification decision is made after the plant closing, and 

the company does not help the State agents locate the workers. 

That is like jacks or better to open to play in the system. You 

know, now you get to play, but that is the beginning of how you 

run in this system.’’

I would like to ask you and, I think, Mr. Bevard and Dr. Alford 

the question as to what extent have we put in time lines that just 

do not work when you are on the ground for the consumer, so to 

speak, for the person who has to run this gauntlet, or for those trying to design helpful programs and access for workers. 

Just in your sort of practical experience, Mr. Herman, you obviously have some recommendations which I will get to later. 

Mr. HERMAN. You read from my testimony, and that was just one 

sort of indication of the complexity of this program. Workers can 

get tripped up, of course, anywhere along that trajectory; and 

many, in fact the majority, of workers do. So there is a disconnect 

between when you are eligible for income support, when you have 

to enroll in training. If you miss the training deadline, then you become ineligible for the income support that also affects HCTC. 

So this is the overcomplexity of the program, and that is why you 

see such low takeup rates. So that is something that certainly 

needs to be addressed. It needs to be simplified and streamlined, 

and you need to recognize that the sequencing of a layoff notice, 

when you get income support, when you are eligible for assistance 

in terms of education, is often not in alignment with the formal 

education system. That is why, you know, if you get laid off in the 

middle of the fall and you cannot enroll until the next semester, 

that puts you at risk in losing some of the other benefits. 

So those sort of basic alignment issues are very much present in 

the current system, and that is part of the reason why it is just 

not working very well. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Bevard. 

Mr. BEVARD. Yes. I mean, like you said, the alignment is poor in 

regards to the coordination of benefits. It was interesting Mr. 

77

McKeon talked about the WIA, which we did have, but in all honesty, they did not address any of the concerns that I brought up 

other than that it provided some additional funding sources, but 

even that was not available to compensate. 

Again, you know, hearing that we had 2 years to prepare, that 

was a curse and a blessing because, again, the question is where 

do you go. When they made the announcement, they were telling 

us, okay, growth industries are in areas like computers and all this 

kind of thing, but by the time we were actually going out the door, 

now that has changed. So I have got my mind set on here is where 

I am going to go, but now I cannot go in that direction anymore, 

and so there is just a myriad of things that do not line up. You 

know, it all sounds good on paper, but in practicality it is very rare 

for the stars to line up to your benefit. 

Chairman MILLER. Dr. Alford. 

Dr. ALFORD. I think that it is true for a number of reasons. One 

is that often when people are in the formative shock of losing a job, 

they are not at a readiness level to even hear about these programs 

and activities. They are worrying about where my kid’s going to be 

tomorrow and how I am going to pay for child care and those kinds 

of more immediate issues. And so it is not because they are bad 

people or anything; they just are inundated with so many decisions 

to make and so forth that it may be much later before they can get 

ready to start thinking about what do I do next and what kind of 

education and training will I need to do that. And so that is part 

of the issue. That is what I meant when I said decisions about 

those kinds of issues should be pushed down to the people who are 

working with those people to the extent possible. 

The other issue, as I mentioned earlier, is often now it is not a 

matter of you lose a job, you go get training, you get another job. 

So often it is a matter of going into some kind of entry level for 

some kind of career ladder where you have to have interspersed 

education and training and intermittent certification to get through 

various levels there; because you can start in the hospitality industry and work your way up to a career, but you can take that job 

and get that health insurance immediately and have some kind of 

subsistence wage until you make those connections. 

So I think as you consider the reauthorization of WIA, and this 

program as well, that we should look to see if there is some way 

we could provide those kinds of options within the framework of 

what we are about here. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. Your answer has raised a whole 

series of questions for me. 

Mr. Herman, in your statement you also make a very strong recommendation that Congress ought to seek some input from the 

union State agencies, one-shops, and others knowledgeable in this 

field. And we will take you up on that effort because, clearly, this 

hearing demands a follow-on to this as we look at how we might 

be helpful in making these programs more user friendly. I am always struck how complex we make programs for the most vulnerable people in our society. It is just quite amazing. 

Do any of my colleagues have another question that they—Mr. 

Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Just one clarification first. 

78

I mentioned the figure 12,000 in Michigan. That is really 12,000 

certified since October 2005. 

Let me just say one thing, if I may, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a capped entitlement, so you have to tell people, Well, the 

cap has been reached, and therefore, you cannot get in this program. If Congress were to take the cap off, that would relieve one 

of the problems there, and I think we could take it off. You know, 

we could take it off by—we could fund it just by getting a little bit 

of that $2 trillion tax cut, which the President signed into law 

about 5 years ago, and put that into the entitlement. But a capped 

entitlement to my mind is rather cruel, particularly when that entitlement exists because of a sad situation caused by a sad trade 

agreement. But I just think we should take that cap off. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Hare. 

Mr. HARE. I just had one other thing, Mr. Bevard. 

We were talking about—again, you also went to Herrin, Illinois. 

I know Maytag closed a factory there. 

Mr. BEVARD. Yes. 

Mr. HARE. And how many jobs? 

Mr. BEVARD. About 1,000. 

Mr. HARE. About 1,000 there. 

Could you just briefly touch on the concern you had, too, because 

in Galesburg the workers there at least had an opportunity to go 

up to my hometown to work for John Deere or for Caterpillar. But 

in Herrin, Illinois, that is coal country basically, so for several hundred miles around, there is little for those folks to train to do unless you want to work in a mine. 

Mr. BEVARD. Yes. Again, you are being educated for what? Again, 

in our area, like you said, you know, there were—you can drive 15 

miles in either direction, and there are some jobs at a couple of factories that are open, but you run the risk of do I want to go 

through the same thing all over again,, but in Herrin, Illinois, 

while it is very deep in Southern Illinois and there are 1,000 people 

who have excellent educational opportunities, just outstanding, the 

problem is there are no jobs, absolutely no jobs. Coal is king. And 

if you want to work in the coal mines, that is fine, but there is not 

much else down there. 

So what do you do? You know, I have heard about entrepreneurial types of things, and that is all well and good. How many 

of those will be sustained in an area like that? Again, it all comes 

back to where do you train. 

In our facility, we had a gentleman who worked at one facility 

that was closed. He went to the next one, and they closed and 

moved to South America. Then he came to Maytag, which closed 

and moved to Mexico. He is 62 years old. He should be in the ballpark of retirement age. He has built up literally no pension because of all of the places he has been at. He can go through all of 

the training that he wants, but at age 62, nobody wants to hire 

him. So what do you do? 

Mr. HARE. That is a very sad commentary, Mr. Bevard. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

79

Any other members? 

Last question. I promise. 

Mr. Herman, in your paper again, this question of—back to deadlines again—sort of the 8- to 16-week deadline on enrollment and 

training. Again, Dr. Alford has made the point and, I think, Mr. 

Bevard has made the point, you know, in many instances for these 

events for these families, they appear to be catastrophic. And I assume that it takes a while to kind of stabilize your thinking and 

think of a plan, but I would suspect your first concern is about income and how you are going to hold things together and not lose 

your house or your car or whatever it is that is pending. 

Shouldn’t then the next question be independent of your first decisions you make—I mean whether you chose—if you had a wage 

insurance option or you had a TAA option or whatever income support options, shouldn’t you then be able to say, Look, I have figured 

it out now. I am working at this job. I am getting wage insurance, 

but what I would really like to do is go off and get training in this 

area. 

I mean it seems to me, to force people to make a series of decisions here when almost all of us would be reeling from that kind 

of—I mean it happens to Members of Congress every 2 years every 

now and then. Wow. You know, try and retrain one of those puppies, but—excuse me. Excuse me. Stop. 

Mr. HERMAN. As I said in my testimony, they are cumbersome, 

they are arbitrary, they trip up a lot of workers. But one thing we 

know—and this relates to the relationship between or to the lack 

of relationship often between WIA and TAA—is advance notice and 

advance counseling help. A peer-to-peer program that Mr. Bevard 

went through is very important. That takes place in some places, 

not everywhere, in part because it is part of the rapid response system, so it is WIA funded, and it is part of rapid response and peer 

counseling; also layoff aversions. These are elements that we advocate for that need to be beefed up, because not all of these facilities, 

particularly when you get to second- and third-tier suppliers, necessarily have to close the way the overall assembly plants do. So 

that is one aspect. 

But as to the specific, you know, aspects that we identify in my 

testimony, the 8-16 rule is a really cumbersome one. It is quite arbitrary. We recommend just basically putting in a much longer 

time frame where workers can make decisions about what to select 

from a menu of options, because they need that time to sort things 

out. They also need counseling. They need support. They need advice. 

Very often, workers are confronted with these choices in isolation. You got the warn notice. You know your plant is going to 

close. Sometimes you have a union to help you out. Sometimes you 

do not. You are bombarded with just a plethora of information that 

you cannot even sort through on a timely basis, let alone make decisions that are going to influence the rest of your career and your 

family. 

So those issues, particularly lengthening the time frame in which 

workers have to sort through the options available to them, are 

very important and would make the system a lot more user friendly and would probably increase the takeup rates. 

80

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Dorn. 

Mr. DORN. I think implicit in your question is a fascinating paradigm shift for the system, and I make this comment a little nervously because I am more into the health coverage side of things 

than into the training side of things. But during this initial period 

of time when workers are reeling and are being bombarded with 

all of these messages about different benefits and about how to 

cope emotionally and so forth, I wonder whether there could be, as 

you said earlier, some kind of presumptive eligibility, some sort of 

initial coping period where you say to the worker, you know, for 

the next month, or however long that period is, you are going to 

have health insurance; you are going to have unemployment insurance payments; you are going to get certain basic things to hold 

your life together while you sort through the system and figure out 

where to go. 

I wonder whether that sort of presumptive eligibility system 

might be something worth considering. 

Chairman MILLER. That and other questions will be answered by 

this committee in the future. 

Thank you so very much for all of your testimony. It has, I think, 

been very helpful to the members and to this debate. Thank you 

so much. 

Without objection, the members will have 14 days to submit additional materials or questions for the hearing record. 

With that, the committee will stand adjourned. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress 

From the State of Pennsylvania 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this critical hearing on how effective existing programs are in helping workers impacted by international trade. 

I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of our witnesses. I appreciate the 

time you took to be here today and I look forward to your testimony. 

I would like to begin my statement by reading from a letter sent to me by Mr. 

John Bolas, a constituent of mine, who is currently using Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits and asked that I share his story with the members of this Committee. 

‘‘Members of Congress: I am soon going to finish an accelerated 18-month training 

program under the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. With the help of the TAA 

program I am moving from a dead end manufacturing job with few skills to having 

the skills to get a good job helping other people get back from sickness and injury 

to their former everyday lives. 

‘‘It has been a hard two years since I lost my job at the former Phoenix (now Anchor Hocking) glass plant in Monaca PA. In 2005 half the workforce was cut as my 

former employer faced cheap imported glass competition. Fortunately my union was 

able to get my workplace certified for the TAA program so I had enough training 

funds to go into the healthcare field to become a Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant. I expect to make $33,000 to start and I only made $25,000 in the glass 

plant. 

‘‘With a disabled wife and two young kids it was hard living on Unemployment 

and TRA weekly checks-they pay about 1/2 my former wage. My in-laws had to help 

us out and I took out a few loans to cover my family’s living expenses. But without 

the checks, especially the TRA (Trade Readjustment Allowance) checks that started 

when my 6 months of state benefits ran out, I couldn’t have made it at all. 

‘‘Not only was my tuition covered, but books and supplies were paid for by the 

TAA program. And if I can’t find a job locally I understand that the TAA training 

program will help me look for work and move if I find it in another part of the state 

or country. I don’t want to move my family but it helps to know I could get some 

help to move if I have to. 

‘‘For some of my co-workers it was hard to figure out what they wanted to train 

for their future jobs. It seems like most good paying manufacturing jobs are disappearing. For me it was easy because I saw my dad get through a stroke and then 

81

cancer. He got physical therapy but no real help getting back to his regular life. I 

wanted to help others do that and this training is directed to help people learn to 

use different ways to accomplish the things they need to get back to driving themselves, learning to use new tools like computers, to get back to their old jobs whenever possible. 

‘‘The TAA/TRA program worked pretty well for me. There were a lot of hoops I 

had to get through, deadlines that would have stopped my eligibility for benefits. 

They seemed unfair since I was doing my best to get on with remaking my life. 

State officials and a local group that helps unemployed people were there for me 

when I needed a little assistance getting things straightened out along the way. 

‘‘Thanks for listening to my story. I hope you keep this program for people who 

lose decent jobs and have to get trained for new kinds of work.’’

As you can see, Mr. Bolas was able to use Trade Adjustment Assistance to successfully transfer from a career in manufacturing to a career in health care. While 

Mr. Bolas was able to use the TAA effectively, he noted the difficult bureaucratic 

process he had to go through to qualify for and receive TAA benefits. 

The TAA program is a valuable tool for those who lose their jobs due to cheaply 

imported goods or job relocations outside of the United States. However, there are 

some serious issues that make TAA less useful than it should be. One of which is 

the failure to cover workers in service industries. For example, when USAir reservation jobs were relocated to El Salvador, many of my constituents lost their jobs. 

None of these workers, however, qualified for TAA. This is clearly unfair and we 

need to examine how best to address this as the program is reauthorized. 

There are many other issues that if corrected could make the TAA work better 

and more fairly for workers. I look forward to raising these issues as the reauthorization of the TAA program comes before Congress. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

[Additional submissions by Dr. Brainard follow:] 

[Internet address to Brookings Institution commentary, ‘‘A Fairer 

Deal for America’s Workers in a New Era of Offshoring,’’ dated 

September 14, 2005, follows:]

http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/es/commentary/journals/tradeforum/

2005btf—brainard.pdf 

[Internet address to the Commonwealth Fund’s issue brief, ‘‘Limited Take-Up of Health Coverage Tax Credits: A Challenge to Future Tax Credit Design,’’ dated October 2005, follows:]

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr—doc/Dorn—limited—take-up—tax—credits—869—ib.pdf?section=4039

[Internet address to the Economic Policy Institute’s briefing 

paper, ‘‘Globalization That Works for Working Americans,’’ dated 

January 11, 2007, follows:]

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp179/bp179.pdf 

[Wall Street Journal article, ‘‘Federal Aid Does Little for Free 

Trade’s Losers,’’ dated March 1, 2007, follows:]

82


wsj-1.eps
83


wsj-2.eps
84


wsj-3.eps
85


wsj-4.eps
86

[Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ


wsj-5.eps