[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10512-10513]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1945
           EXPANDING THE TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, there is little arguing about the 
macroeconomic benefits of free and open trade. International trade 
agreements lower prices, they encourage higher productivity; and 
ultimately, they improve consumer choice. But these gains, no matter 
how significant to our economy, are net gains, because increases in 
imports usually contribute to a plant closing and worker layoffs. That 
is because the gains from international trade tend to be very large and 
are widely distributed throughout our economy. The U.S. economy's 
ability to create jobs is virtually unmatched by any other Nation.
  Unfortunately, that is a simplistic view. The cost of imports are 
heavily concentrated by industry, location, and worker demographics. 
And while our economy has demonstrated an ability to create jobs, job 
creation does not always take place at the same location where jobs are 
lost. One need look no further than our last census for proof.
  New jobs are in different industries than jobs lost. The vast 
majority of trade-related job losses are in the manufacturing sector. 
Between 1979 and 1999, 17 million American workers lost their jobs from 
manufacturing industries. However, during that same period of time, the 
United States added 39 million jobs. So essentially, for every job lost 
in the manufacturing sector, more than two jobs were created in the 
economy.
  Almost all the net new jobs created have been in the service sector, 
which require new skills and, in many cases, do not provide the same 
wages or benefits which existed at a previous job.
  So, yes, the fact remains that the macroeconomic gains from 
international trade almost always outweigh the cost. However, these 
costs are significant for individual workers and their families and to 
the towns and communities in which they live.
  As we have seen in the past several years, the costs can undermine 
efforts to further liberalize trade, which is the position we find 
ourselves in tonight. Ours is a Nation built on commerce, and I support 
giving the executive branch the authority to negotiate with foreign 
nations to lower trade barriers.
  We do not need 535 trade ambassadors. What we do need is a mechanism 
which allows the executive branch to negotiate on behalf of Congress 
and to ensure the will of Congress is respected in those negotiations.
  So far, the legislation granting the President fast track trade 
negotiating authority has not lived up to this requirement; and as 
such, I have not supported it. One of the reasons the administration 
has not been able to rally support for fast track is because of the 
lousy job we have done in remedying the casualties of trade.
  Now, by the way, this has gone on for a long time, for 40 years. 
Forty years ago, President Kennedy spoke of the need to ensure American 
workers who lose their jobs to imports are retrained for other careers. 
Quoting President Kennedy, he said: ``Those injured by trade 
competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the 
impact. Rather, the burden of economic adjustment should be borne in 
part by the Federal Government. There is an obligation to render 
assistance to those who suffer as a result of national trade policy.''

[[Page 10513]]

  Those remarks culminated in the enactment of the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance program, or TAA, in 1962. At the time, the United States had 
an enormous trade surplus, imports only comprised 5 percent of the 
gross domestic product and manufacturing comprised 30 percent of total 
employment.
  Fast forward to today, 40 years later. The share of imports of GDP 
has tripled, trade surplus has turned into a huge trade deficit and the 
manufacturing share of total employment has fallen to 13 percent. 
Despite our strong economic growth, it appears President Kennedy's 
comment is more relevant today than it was 40 years ago.
  While TAA may not erase all the economic pain caused by dislocation, 
it has made the adjustment to a new job a little easier, and represents 
small compensation for the losses they and their families have 
experienced. However, there is a lot of room for improvement in the TAA 
program. We need to expand the program and ensure that it will offer 
financial support, retraining and relocation benefits as Americans work 
to upgrade their skills and transition into more complex jobs that 
offer them the best opportunity of reclaiming old earning levels.
  The other body has made substantial inroads into improving the 
program in its consideration of fast track legislation, especially in 
the area that concerns most of us, and that is affordable health care.
  Mr. Speaker, as millions of Americans have discovered, losing a good-
paying job is bad enough; but losing health insurance is a straw that 
can break the camel's back. Health insurance is very expensive, which 
is why nearly one in seven Americans, or 39 million people, do not have 
health insurance. Currently, workers who lose their jobs are eligible 
for extended health care insurance which enables them to retain the 
health insurance they had at their jobs, but at four to six times the 
amount they formerly paid while employed.
  The other body's proposal would remedy that situation by ensuring 
that TAA eligible workers would have a tax credit of 70 percent of 
their health insurance premiums. Workers would actually be able to 
afford health insurance as they seek retraining assistance, a key to 
ensuring that they finish their retraining. The other body's TAA tax 
credit provision guarantees that workers will have access to the 
coverage they need at a price they can afford. Forty years after the 
creation of the TAA program, it is high time Congress gave it the 
resources it needs to be better prepared to better prepare the American 
workforce for the challenges and opportunities of a global economy. I 
hope we can all approve of an expanded TAA program that includes health 
care.

                          ____________________