[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 97 (Wednesday, July 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Page S6949]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 2737. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to consolidate and 
improve the trade adjustment assistance programs, to provide community-
based economic development assistance for trade-affected communities, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Improvement Act of 2002.
  You may ask why I am introducing this new bill now. After all, only 
about a month ago the Senate passed the Trade Act of 2002, a bill which 
prominently features a landmark expansion and improvement of the 
current Trade Adjustment Assistance program.
  We all know that work on that trade bill is not yet complete. And I 
continue working diligently to get that bill through the conference 
process and on to the President's desk just as soon as possible.
  Indeed, I am frustrated that so much time has been lost on this bill. 
Five weeks in the House as they worked through a very unusual process 
of appointing conferees. More time in the Senate while Republicans 
blocked efforts to get the bill to conference.
  The TAA provisions in the trade bill that passed the Senate back in 
May are solid and important. They represent a huge improvement over 
current law. It is critical to remember, however, that they are the 
product of compromise, a compromise that was reached between Democrats 
and Republicans in the Senate and with the Administration.
  In my view, the Senate-passed TAA reforms represent a good first step 
toward making TAA work for American workers. But we could do better. 
And we should do better.
  That is why I am here introducing new TAA legislation today. I think 
American workers should know that my commitment to improve TAA will not 
end after we pass the current trade bill.
  This new bill includes a number of provisions not included in H.R. 
3009, the bill that passed the Senate. I would like to summarize a few 
of the most important new provisions now.
  First, this bill makes training a full entitlement under TAA.
  Under current law, TAA income support is an individual entitlement, 
but the training entitlement is subject to a funding cap. When funds 
run out, as they frequently do, workers cannot get the training to 
which they are entitled. In some cases, this results in denial of 
income support as well.
  While H.R. 3009 raises the funding cap in an attempt to eliminate 
funding shortfalls for TAA training, I think this bill takes an even 
better approach. After all, TAA is fundamentally a retraining program. 
It just makes sense to make the same commitment to fully fund training 
that we already do to income support.
  Second , this bill broadens the scope of eligibility to additional 
groups of trade-impacted workers who were dropped from TAA in the 
compromise language passed by the Senate. This includes, most 
importantly, a much broader definition of secondary workers.
  In particular, this bill includes full TAA eligibility for downstream 
secondary workers, rather than limiting that eligibility to workers 
impacted by NAFTA.
  It also includes coverage for workers who provide services under 
contract to trade-impacted firms and to truckers who may be adversely 
affected by the opening of the border to Mexican trucking services. In 
sum, this bill aims to make sure that every worker who loses his job as 
a result of trade gets fair and equitable access to services under TAA.
  Third, this bill creates an easy and efficient process for providing 
TAA benefits on an industry-wide rather than firm-by-firm basis. We all 
know that there are industries in this country, like softwood lumber, 
steel, and textiles, just to name a few, that are experiencing 
declining employment on a national basis as a direct consequence of 
trade.
  The bill addresses the problem two ways. In cases where an industry 
has already demonstrated adverse trade effects in a section 201 or 
``safeguard'' investigation, the President must provide industry-wide 
TAA certification as part of the remedy.
  It also requires the Secretary of Labor to use an industry-wide 
approach to certification in other industries when there is evidence 
that trade-related worker displacements are national in scope.
  Finally, we restore the 75 percent health care tax credit for TAA 
participants that was reduced to 70 percent in the compromise trade 
bill. We also give workers additional choices for obtaining health care 
coverage.
  Without strong and meaningful improvements in the TAA program, I 
think we would not have seen the wide, bipartisan support for the 
overall trade bill that allowed it to pass the Senate by a vote of 66-
30.
  For that reason, I view the Senate-passed TAA bill as a floor for 
what can reasonably be agreed to in conference. I don't think that 
something weaker is going to get us to a majority when the Senate 
considers the conference report.
  As I mentioned before, many of the provisions included in this new 
bill were dropped from the trade bill that recently passed the Senate 
as part of a bipartisan compromise. Many, if not all, of them fall 
easily within the scope of the upcoming conference.
  While I plan to vigorously defend the Senate bill in conference, I 
want to remind my colleagues in the House that the Senate bill already 
represents a bipartisan compromise, one worked out with the 
Administration.
  In passing the rule to go to conference, my colleagues in the House 
have passed a bill that would completely gut the Senate-passed 
provisions. For example: the restrictions on coverage for secondary 
workers are so strict as to effectively eliminate coverage; the bill 
would not cover shifts in production to non-NAFTA countries; and the 
health care benefits have been significantly weakened. They would cover 
many fewer workers, for a shorter period of time, with reduced benefits 
that may be of little use.
  I would suggest to my colleagues in the House that efforts to weaken 
the Senate bill will be met with equally strong efforts to strengthen 
it. It should come as no surprise that, if my House colleagues persist 
in trying to weaken TAA, I will feel obligated to raise some of the 
provisions that were dropped in the Senate negotiations.
  As I have said many times, I believe an improved TAA program is 
critical to regaining public confidence in a liberal trade policy for 
our country. In future, I intend to keep working toward the goal of 
improving TAA in every way available. I think this new bill points us 
in the right direction and I am pleased to be introducing it today.
                                 ______