[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 68 (Thursday, May 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4789-S4792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT--Continued

  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
compromise trade package that is now before the Senate and to praise 
both sides for recognizing the need of retaining the linkage of trade 
promotion authority (TPA) and trade adjustment assistance (TAA) during 
floor consideration.
  I would first like to commend Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member 
Grassley for their efforts in crafting this package.
  Not only have they worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure that it is 
the product of principled compromise, but they have also sought to 
ensure that many of my concerns regarding the deficiencies of past 
extensions of trade authority--most notably, a lack of accountability 
and consideration of the needs of small businesses--have been 
addressed. In the same manner, both agreed to a critical expansion of 
the existing TAA program while also including provisions I advocated to 
accelerate assistance to dislocated workers and provide them with 
greater options in the utilization of these benefits.
  I would also like to thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for 
their tenacity as we worked through the health care provisions in the 
TAA package during the last four weeks. Their commitment to this effort 
made it possible for the three of us to develop this agreement, and 
while both sides have made significant concessions to finalize this 
deal, we believe these health care provisions are a solid contribution 
to the TAA package.
  At the beginning of the TPA-TAA debate in the Senate, everyone 
believed the fight over health care would doom Senate passage, but 
together we have proved them wrong. On that note, I would also like to 
commend the staff of both Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley who 
worked so hard to develop this compromise against tremendous odds.
  The Finance Committee has been working on the TPA and TAA legislation 
for nearly a year now, and, as a member of that committee, I have been 
extensively involved in its development. Through hearings and markups, 
along with numerous discussions, we have extensively debated this 
legislation--and will likely continue to do so until the final vote.
  My decision to support this package, and the TPA section in 
particular, was by no means a foregone conclusion, as I have opposed 
trade agreements and fast-track authority in the past. I did so because 
I never felt they struck the proper balance between free and fair 
trade, and I have been concerned that both Republican and Democrat 
administrations approached the enforcement of U.S. trade laws not with 
vigor, but with benign neglect.
  However, when the Finance Committee marked up this fast-track 
legislation in December, I supported it precisely because it does 
strike the appropriate balance, and because of this administration's 
commitment to aggressively enforce our trade laws so that American 
workers aren't undermined by unfair trade practices.
  Furthermore, while some oppose linking TPA and TAA as contained in 
this trade package, my support is contingent on this linkage and I have 
repeatedly emphasized the importance of joining these proposals that 
are inextricably joined. TAA would not even exist if not for the fact 
that trade agreements impact U.S. jobs, so attempting to bifurcate TAA 
and TPA is like trying to divide the ``heads'' from the ``tails'' on a 
coin--sure, it may be possible, but the end product won't be worth one 
red cent!
  We must never forget that in the engagement of trade there is a 
downside--chiefly, that real lives are affected--people not just 
statistics. When Americans become unemployed due to increased imports 
or plant relocations to other countries, it is because of trade 
agreements negotiated by the government of the United States and passed 
by Congress. Therefore, we have no obligation to also work toward 
forging a system that provides these trade-impacted Americans with the 
new skills needed to gain new employment.
  And lest anyone question the need or value of the program, consider 
the fact that TAA has served not only as a life-saver but also as an 
opportunity-creator for individuals to be retrained so they can re-
enter the workforce as quickly as possible. Since October 1997 to 
today, 9,200 Mainers have benefitted from TAA. Nationally, during this 
same time-frame, almost 1 million people were covered by TAA. In Maine 
right now, 1,102 people are receiving TAA benefits.
  In fact, in Maine it's been a whole litany of closings from a variety 
of industries since NAFTA: Carleton Woolen Mills lost 600 jobs, Dexter 
Shoe Company lost 550 jobs, Kimberly-Clark lost 450 jobs while Mead 
Paper lost 472 jobs and G.H. Bass footwear lost 355 jobs, as did Cole-
Haan Manufacturing, while Eastland Shoe Manufacturing lost 250 jobs and 
Saucony closed with 110 workers, and just recently, Hathaway Shirts, 
one of the oldest and last remaining domestic shirt-makers, with 300 
workers. Many of these people turned to TAA.
  The final provisions of the legislation before us were in question up 
until the last minute, but they make vital improvements and expansions 
to the program, including several I have fought for. Specifically, 
besides consolidating the current TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs into one, 
more efficient program, the bill includes my proposal to speed up 
assistance to displaced workers by decreasing the TAA petition time for 
certification from 60 days to 40 days. Reducing this time by 20 days 
will allow people to get on with their lives that much quicker.
  The bill also includes my proposal to create a new pilot program 
under the Small Business Administration (SBA) that will test how TAA 
can help those seeking to start their own business by assisting with 
development plans without the loss of their TAA benefits. It also 
allows for customized, employer-sponsored training programs where a 
worker can learn a specialized skill while on the job.
  And the legislation also establishes a performance accountability and 
reporting system. A concern expressed to me by Maine officials has been 
that, without taking into account the economic conditions of the 
states, good systems could be erroneously judged bad due to an economic 
downturn of a state. By factoring-in this new criteria, we ensure that 
such a vital component of the overall picture is part of the equation.
  Beyond these provisions, the TAA legislation also recognizes the fact 
that it is not only people but communities

[[Page S4790]]

that can be adversely impacted by job loss or plant relocations. It 
does so by creating a new Office of Community Trade Adjustment at the 
Economic Development Administration (EDA) that will work closely with 
state and local officials to develop a strategic plan when a community 
suffers massive layoffs. The Office can dispense grants that could 
prove critical in getting these communities back on track.

  Moreover, this bill addresses another issue that has created problems 
in my state this year--the current budget for training assistance. 
Since last year, Maine has run short of training funds by approximately 
$2.7 million, forcing them to apply for five different Department of 
Labor National Emergency Grants and potentially causing a freeze in 
retraining assistance. By providing $300 million in funding, this 
shortfall will be fully addressed.
  And we didn't stop there. Not only does this funding level address 
State shortfalls, but it also ensures expanded coverage for secondary 
workers affected by trade. Specifically, under the compromise developed 
by Senators Grassley and Baucus, secondary workers with a direct 
relationship to the downsizing or closing of a plant will be covered by 
TAA, while so-called downstream workers covered now under a Statement 
of Administrative Action as part of the NAFTA-TAA program will also be 
covered through the SAA's codification.
  And, as I stated earlier, bipartisanship also prevailed on the 
contentious health care issue. Since the end of last year, the health 
care provision seemed to be the one that would divide us and perhaps 
even bring down this trade package. Well, Madam President, through the 
hard work and dedication of many offices, this obstacle has been 
averted.
  The health care compromise included in this agreement provides a 70 
percent tax credit for trade-impacted workers to continue their health 
coverage for themselves and their family. This tax credit is 
``advanceable'' so that people will receive this assistance immediately 
rather than paying up front to get a tax refund later. The tax credit 
is also refundable and, as such, provides the full level of the tax 
credit regardless of whether the individual will owe any taxes that 
year.
  Trade-affected workers can use this tax credit toward the cost of 
COBRA health coverage from their former employer, if that is available, 
or they can purchase private health coverage through purchasing groups, 
state high-risk pools, or other group purchasing arrangements 
established by the states. Workers can also use the tax credit toward 
their current private health coverage.
  Through these and other provisions, what we have before us today is a 
bill that recognizes that our desire to trade is dependent on our 
ability to assist those adversely affected by trade. An expanded TAA 
program will be part and parcel of an extension of trade negotiating 
authority--and American workers will be provided with the assistance 
they need and deserve.
  In that light, as the world grows ever closer, the implications of 
our trade agreements are more critical--and more magnified--than ever 
before. As I mentioned earlier, my past opposition to fast-track, due 
to concerns about the balance between free and fair trade and our 
enforcement of our trade laws, have been addressed in this bill.
  The bottom line is that enforcement is an inseparable component of 
free and fair trade. If you don't believe me, just look at the record. 
In the past, when free trade and fair trade have been treated as 
mutually exclusive, import-sensitive industries in Maine and America 
were decimated by foreign competitors. Why? Because foreign businesses 
enjoyed the benefits of a lack of reciprocity in trade agreements--
foreign industry subsidies--dumping in the U.S. market--and nontariff 
trade barriers. That's why, as a Member of the House in 1986, I 
lamented that we were running up ``the white flag of surrender in the 
international marketplace.''
  The ``white flag'' is perhaps best represented by the shoe industry, 
which is one that has borne the brunt of our trade policies. In 1986, 
for example, it experienced an 82 percent import penetration with over 
750 million pairs of shoes entering this country annually. Japan, on 
the other hand, allowed only 1 million pairs of shoes to be imported 
and Brazil had a 100 percent tariff effectively barring imports. The 
U.S. industry filed a trade relief petition under section 201, and a 
five year temporary quota was recommended by the International Trade 
Commission (ITC), but the Administration did not act on it. In short, 
we abandoned our workers, our industry and our trade policy in the 
pursuit of free trade.
  And the surrender of our rights under our own trade laws has had 
serious consequences in the lives of real people. In Maine alone, we 
lost nearly 15,400 manufacturing jobs since NAFTA's inception, 
including 2,400 textile jobs, 6,000 leather products jobs, 500 apparel 
jobs, 3,700 paper and allied products jobs, and 4,800 footwear jobs, 
excluding rubber footwear, and 5,200 manufacturing jobs so far just 
this year. We failed those people because we abdicated our 
responsibility to take a balanced, comprehensive and integrated 
approach to trade.
  That is why I worked to ensure that the ATPA legislation contains at 
least a 15 year tariff phaseout for rubber footwear, which is supported 
by the domestic industry. As it was originally written, the ATPA would 
have signaled the end of our rubber footwear industry by setting a 
precedent for all other countries. How? By matching this tariff 
phaseout to the seven years left under the NAFTA, other countries in 
future agreements would unquestionably seek the same.
  During negotiations over NAFTA, the U.S. industry fought to be 
excluded but grudgingly accepted a 15 year phaseout as a recognition of 
their import-sensitivity. This is exemplified over the past decades by 
the decrease we've seen in jobs in this industry from 26,000 workers in 
the early 1970s to 2,600 today. And I might add, more than a third of 
those remaining jobs are located in Maine. So to have subjected this 
industry to the same phase-out date as that required by NAFTA would 
have put them at yet another debilitating disadvantage by depriving 
them of another eight years of adjustment. So when it comes to ATPA, to 
do anything but provide at least the 15 years prescribed under NAFTA 
would have been unconscionable.
  And while we cannot bring back these or other jobs that were lost due 
to the miscues of the past, we can learn from those miscues and apply 
the lessons to our present and future actions. We can change our 
approach at the negotiating table. We can enforce existing trade laws.
  In the real world, we have to acknowledge that there are many nations 
that don't care about labor or environmental standards. And that 
creates a tilted playing field where it's harder for us to compete. In 
that regard, this bill makes significant progress on the issues of 
labor and the environment and I believe it is both a necessary and 
important distinction that separates this proposal from prior 
approaches to fast track. The bill before us today not only sets as an 
overall objective the need to convince our trading partners not to 
weaken their labor or environmental laws as an inducement to trade, but 
it also requires the enforcement of existing labor and environmental 
laws as a principal negotiating objective.
  The legislation also recognizes the need to take steps to protect the 
import sensitive textile and apparel industry. It calls for reducing 
tariffs on textiles and apparels in other countries to the same or 
lower levels than in the U.S., reducing or eliminating subsidies to 
provide for greater market opportunities for U.S. textiles and 
apparels, and ensuring that WTO member countries immediately fulfill 
their obligations to provide similar market access for U.S. textiles 
and apparels as the U.S. does for theirs.
  And this legislation includes new negotiating objectives to address 
the issue of foreign subsidies and market distortions that lead to 
dumping. As a result, many industries stand to benefit from the 
adoption of this legislation, including the forest and paper, 
agriculture, semiconductor, precision manufacturing, and electronic 
industries of my home state. According to Maine Governor Angus King the 
fast track approach is, ``On balance--beneficial to Maine. There might 
be some short term problems, but in the long run, we have to 
participate in the world economy.
  And Maine has been participating. From 1989 to 1999, total exports by

[[Page S4791]]

Maine companies increased by 137 percent from $914 million to $2.167 
billion, with the largest industry sector for trade being 
semiconductors--employing about 2,000 in Maine. The computer and 
electronics trade, which includes semiconductors, accounted for 33 
percent of Maine's exports in 1999, followed by paper and allied 
products at 17 percent.
  The Maine industries that benefit from exports have also seen job 
gains in the state. From 1994 to 1999, the electrical and electronics 
industry had a job gain of 2.3 percent and the agriculture, forestry 
and fishing industry saw a 19 percent increase in jobs. In 2000, 
Maine's exports supported 84,000 jobs.
  And two other Maine industries--the import-sensitive salmon 
acquaculture industry that was the target of dumping by Chile, and the 
rubber footwear industry that's been severely impact by past trade 
agreements--stand to benefit from commitments I've received from the 
administration to stand firm on antidumping laws and to negotiate 
aggressively on their behalf in future agreements.
  I have also worked in the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATP) to 
provide the rubber footwear industry with a comparable tariff provision 
to that which they received in the NAFTA. The original ATPA further 
threatened this industry by giving the four Andean nations a tariff 
phase-out schedule that was only half as long as the 15-year schedule 
contained in the NAFTA. I am pleased that this legislation now contains 
this same 15 year phaseout because without this we would be setting a 
precedent that would be demanded by other countries as well.

  These measures and commitments represent a significant strengthening 
of our resolve and our ability to utilize existing remedies to protect 
American industries and workers. This comes not a moment too soon, as 
the success of our economy relies more than ever on fair and freer 
trade--U.S. exports accounted for one-quarter of U.S. economic growth 
over the past decade, nearly one in six manufactured products coming 
off the assembly line goes to a foreign customer, and exports support 
one of every five manufacturing jobs.
  Given these facts, it is understandable concern that the U.S. has 
been party to only 3 free trade agreements while there are more than 
130 worldwide. Since 1995, the WTO has been notified of 90 such 
agreements while the U.S. only reached one in the trade arena, the 
Jordan Free Trade Agreement. In contrast, the European Union (EU) has 
been particularly aggressive, having entered into 27 free trade 
agreements since 1990 and they are actively negotiating another 15. 
Perhaps not surprisingly, the Business Roundtable reports that 33 
percent of total world exports are covered by EU free trade agreements 
compared to 11 percent for U.S. agreements.
  Why should these facts raise concerns? Because every agreement made 
without us is a threat to American jobs. Nowhere is this better 
exemplified than in Chile which signed a free trade agreement with 
Canada, Argentina and several other nations in 1997.
  Since that time, the U.S. has lost one-quarter of Chile's important 
market, while nations entering into trade agreements more than captured 
our lost share. According to the National Association of Manufacturers 
(NAM), this resulted in the loss of more than $800 million in U.S. 
exports and 100,000 job opportunities. One specific industry affected 
was U.S. paper products which accounted for 30 percent of Chile's 
imports but has since dropped to only 11 percent after the trade 
agreements were signed.
  We need to look to the future of our industries and open doors of 
opportunity in the global marketplace. In order to do so responsibly, 
we need to learn every economic lesson possible from the past, and this 
package provides for not only a study I requested of the economic 
impact of the past five trade agreements, but also an additional 
evaluation of any new agreements before TPA is extended.
  And we need to make sure that everyone who can benefit from these 
agreements can get their foot in the door. Small businesses, for 
example, account for 30 percent of all U.S. goods exported, and in 
Maine more than 78 percent export, so I am pleased this bill includes 
my proposals placing small businesses in our principle negotiating 
objectives.
  Small businesses also face the biggest hurdles to engaging in 
international trade, even as it provides them with best opportunity for 
growth. So we must ensure their views and needs are addressed in any 
agreement reached, and I want to thank the chairman and ranking member 
of the Finance Committee for including my provision to create an 
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small Business and my proposal 
requiring the USTR to call for a small business advocate at the WTO in 
order to ensure that small businesses have advocates at the table 
during all negotiations.
  Finally, the package now includes consultation rights for the House 
and Senate Committees with oversight of the fishing industry. As the 
past chair and current ranking member of the Commerce Subcommittee on 
Oceans and Fisheries, I can tell you that the actions of other 
countries with regard to fishing plays a crucial role in ensuring our 
industry has a level playing field on which to compete. Last year this 
country exported $11 billion worth of edible and nonedible fish 
products, and in Maine the industry, which is our 5th leading exporter, 
generates 26,000 jobs.
  The bottom line is international trade is inextricably linked to the 
economic future of the United States. The adoption of this 
comprehensive package will ensure that trade agreements will be pursued 
in a fair and balanced manner to the benefit of all Americans while 
also recognizing the need for expanded assistance for those who lose 
their jobs due to trade, and I urge its adoption. Thank you. I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time under the quorum call be charged 
equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise to voice my support for the 
pending legislation, the trade promotion authority, as well as the TAA, 
a bill that is before us, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. While it 
is not a perfect bill by any stretch of the imagination, it is 
important in two respects. It promotes trade and it gives the President 
the opportunity to craft free trade agreements and open markets.
  Pennsylvania, for example, had exports in 2000 to the tune of $24 
billion. We export to over 204 foreign destinations. It is a very 
important part of Pennsylvania's economy, and it would be vitally 
important for Pennsylvania if we could open markets particularly with 
South America. We can begin to structure free trade agreements.
  Several South American countries, for example, are very big users of 
the Port of Philadelphia. Free trade agreements would mean a lot to 
businesses in Philadelphia, as well as our transportation industry in 
Pennsylvania, which is a big part of the Pennsylvania economy.
  We have tremendous opportunities in Pennsylvania with our 
manufacturing base, our high-technology industries, our agriculture, to 
export not just to South America but around the globe.
  This is a great opportunity for this administration to structure 
deals, to bring down tariffs, and to allow us to compete better in the 
global marketplace.
  While I do have some concerns about the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Act, I do believe it is important for us to pass a trade adjustment 
assistance act that does deal with some of the downsides. I think there 
are a lot of upsides, a lot of good, quality jobs. But there will be 
some who will lose their jobs, and we need to be there to be helpful, 
to deal with those who are hurt by the actions of the Federal 
Government, by trade agreements that result in people losing their 
jobs.
  In the end, there is no question that trade is a net positive for 
this country. It will improve the quality of life for millions of 
Americans, and not just for

[[Page S4792]]

those who will get better paying jobs because of trade but also people 
will be able to get better quality goods and less expensive goods as a 
result of trade with countries around the world.
  So this is a win-win, in my opinion. We will be taking care of those 
who will be hurt and, at the same time, we will be expanding 
opportunities for millions of people and create a better way of life 
for our citizenry here at home.
  Madam President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we are about to begin a series of votes 
on amendments that have been pending on the trade package. I urge 
Senators to stay on the floor and to respect the need to discipline 
ourselves in regard to the amount of time allocated for the votes. 
Oftentimes, 10- or 15-minute votes turn into half-hour votes. So, 
please, stay on the floor. We have at least 8, perhaps as many as 10, 
rollcall votes that will be occurring momentarily.

                          ____________________