[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 28, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             TRADE AND JOBS

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 28, 1996

  Mr. HAMILTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my 
Washington Report for Wednesday, February 7, 1996, into the 
Congressional Record.

                             Trade and Jobs

       Hoosiers have different perspectives on foreign trade. Some 
     are concerned that imports of cheap goods and services and 
     the relocation of U.S. companies to other countries help keep 
     U.S. wages down and eliminate good jobs. They want the U.S. 
     to take steps to limit foreign competition. Others think 
     trade creates jobs and boosts growth by opening new markets 
     for our goods and services. They want the United States to 
     take better advantage of export opportunities in other 
     countries.
       Both perspectives have some merit. Trade has a number of 
     benefits for jobs and the economy, while trade and plant 
     relocation can also suppress wages and cost jobs. But 
     regardless of where they stand on trade, most Hoosiers would 
     agree that our goal should be to minimize the harm of trade 
     and maximize the benefits. The private sector and governments 
     must work together to help firms take advantage of 
     opportunities created by trade while assisting workers who 
     are adversely affected by it.


                      benefits and costs of trade

       Exporting to other countries supports jobs at home--several 
     million, by most estimates. Imports of goods and services 
     expand choices for consumers and help keep domestic prices 
     down. But workers are sometimes innocent victims of trade 
     developments and other economic forces over which they have 
     little control. While some plants in Indiana have added jobs 
     due to increased exports in recent years, others have liad 
     off workers because of competition from lower-wage countries 
     in Latin America and Asia.
       Although the primary responsibility rests with the private 
     sector, I do think federal, state and local governments can 
     help firms and workers respond to both the opportunities and 
     the challenges of trade.


                             Helping Firms

       When U.S. firms sell more goods and services in foreign 
     markets, the job security and wages of their workers 
     generally increase. The State of Indiana and the federal 
     government each manage a variety of programs that help firms 
     identify and take advantage of export opportunities.
       The Indiana Department of Commerce gives Hoosier businesses 
     specialized advice on how to crack key export markets. It 
     also helps firms participate in international trade shows 
     where they can pitch Indiana products to new foreign 
     customers. The federal government runs several cost-effective 
     export-promotion programs. Every dollar spent promoting 
     exports of manufactured goods contributes to sales that 
     produce an estimated $10 in tax revenues for the Treasury.
       U.S. export-promotion programs were streamlined in 1993 and 
     1994. Overlap among programs was reduced, coordination was 
     improved, and services to small businesses were upgraded. 
     These changes saved operating expenses. And, as Hoosier 
     executives have told me, they also made the programs more 
     effective in generating export sales.
       Last year I opposed the unsuccessful effort in Congress to 
     abolish certain export-promotion programs and to cut the 
     budgets of those that survived by 25%. Most other exporting 
     nations already spend more proportionally than we do on 
     export promotion. These short-sighted cuts would have 
     amounted to unilateral disarmament by the U.S. in the 
     international competition for export sales. I will continue 
     to oppose measures that could reduce our ability to expand 
     our share of world markets and create new opportunities for 
     U.S. workers.


                            Helping Workers

       Job training, vocational education, and income assistance 
     can help workers in several ways. By upgrading job skills, 
     training can boost the wages and job security of U.S. workers 
     who compete with foreign workers. For workers whose jobs have 
     already been lost, training can open the door to careers in 
     industries that are flourishing. Temporary income assistance 
     can help laid-off workers make ends meet while they pursue 
     job training and education.
       The State of Indiana and the federal government both run 
     programs designed to help workers respond to the challenges 
     and opportunities of trade. In addition to backing a range of 
     vocational education efforts, the state provides special job 
     training services to workers confronting serious foreign 
     competition. These programs are often run through Ivy Tech 
     vocational schools, which work closely with companies to 
     identify worker skills most in demand.
       The federal Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program 
     offers three kinds of help to workers whose jobs are lost due 
     to imports: training, job-search counseling, and income 
     assistance for six to twelve months beyond the expiration of 
     state unemployment benefits. In 1995 TAA provided $212 
     million in income assistance for 39,000 workers and $130 
     million in training for 33,000 workers.
       We need to do a better job of helping American workers get 
     a leg up on foreign competition. Most of the world's other 
     major economic powers provide more help to trade-impacted 
     workers than we do. TAA only helps workers after their jobs 
     have been lost due to imports, and it doesn't help workers 
     laid off because jobs were shifted to other countries. The 
     track record of TAA is also mixed. Many recipients of TAA 
     benefits do not land jobs that pay better than the ones they 
     lost.
       Responding to these concerns, the President in 1994 
     proposed in overhaul of dozens of federal job training 
     programs, including TAA. The idea was to create a single, 
     streamlined program that would help any worker whose job was 
     jeopardized or lost due to trade or other changes in the 
     economy. Workers would be given vouchers worth several 
     thousand dollars that they could use to help pay the cost of 
     the job training or vocational education program of their 
     choice.
       Unfortunately, improving U.S. worker training programs has 
     not been a priority of the Gingrich-led House, which has 
     sometimes been willing to let workers fend for themselves in 
     the face of stiff international competition. Work on the 
     President's proposal ground to a halt in 1995. Instead of 
     trying to work with the President to strengthen TAA and other 
     worker training initiatives, congressional leaders have tried 
     to cut funding.


                               Conclusion

       With foreign competition growing, we should be increasing, 
     not decreasing, our investment in workers. Improving the 
     skills of our workforce is among the most important things we 
     can do as a nation. Working with the private sector, Congress 
     and the President must take steps to help U.S. workers retain 
     jobs and wages before they are lost, and prepare for the new 
     jobs that our economy creates.

                          ____________________