The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“EXTENDING TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H10798-H10801 on Sept. 25, 2007.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
EXTENDING TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 3375) to extend the trade adjustment assistance program under the Trade Act of 1974 for 3 months, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3375
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.
(a) Assistance for Workers.--Section 245(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2317(a)) is amended by striking
``September 30, 2007'' and inserting ``December 31, 2007''.
(b) Assistance for Firms.--Section 256(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2346(b)) is amended by inserting after
``2007,'' the following: ``and $4,000,000 for the 3-month period beginning on October 1, 2007,''.
(c) Assistance for Farmers.--Section 298(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2401g(a)) is amended by inserting before the period the following: ``, and there are authorized to be appropriated and there are appropriated to the Department of Agriculture to carry out this chapter
$9,000,000 for the 3-month period beginning on October 1, 2007''.
(d) Extension of Termination Dates.--Section 285 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 note) is amended by striking ``September 30'' each place it appears and inserting
``December 31''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall be effective as of October 1, 2007.
SEC. 2. OFFSETS.
(a) Time for Payment of Corporate Estimated Taxes.--Subparagraph (B) of section 401(1) of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is amended by striking ``114.75 percent'' and inserting ``115 percent''.
(b) Customs User Fees.--Section 13031(j)(3)(B)(i) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)(B)(i)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2014'' and inserting ``October 7, 2014''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today we are considering an extension of a critical component of our trade agenda, an extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. All three programs that make up TAA, Adjustment Assistance for Workers, Adjustment Assistance for Firms, and Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, expire on September 30.
Trade Adjustment Assistance helps to make sure that workers impacted by increased trade get the help and retraining they need and deserve so that they can go out and get new, good-paying, family-wage jobs.
It's not a perfect program. In fact, it needs work. The committee will be taking up legislation reforming and reauthorizing Trade Adjustment Assistance shortly.
Critically, this program will improve the effectiveness of the program by, among other things, offering TAA access to service workers, increasing funding to satisfy unmet demand, getting rid of complicated and burdensome rules that make it hard for people to take advantage of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
I think all of us can expect a discussion draft of the bill reforming and reauthorizing TAA to be circulated in the next week. The committee should take up the bill sometime after that; and if all goes as planned, the program will be authorized before the end of the year.
We will hammer out the details of TAA overhaul; and while we do that, we need to pass this short-term, 3-month extension.
The bill under consideration today was originally introduced by Mr. Herger. His support for the extension reflects the bipartisan support for Trade Adjustment Assistance that's really necessary, and I hope for in the future. It is also a recognition of the fact that the program has an important element of America's overall trade agenda.
I also want to thank, in addition to Mr. Herger and those of you on the Republican side, I want to thank Mr. Adam Smith for his work on Trade Adjustment Assistance.
{time} 1430
We all have been focusing on this issue for many years, and now there is the opportunity to act within this House.
I also want to thank Mr. McDermott, another subcommittee Chair for his help.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I stand in support of this legislation. I appreciate the chairman's leadership on extending it. I stand on behalf of Representative Wally Herger, who is author of this legislation and ranking member, lead Republican on the Trade Subcommittee of Ways and Means.
In my view, free trade is working on America's behalf. The free trade agreements we have today are producing more and more sales of American products and services around the world, nearly doubling those sales. Even though our free trade agreements are with countries that only represent 7 percent of the whole global market, in fact, they buy almost half of all that America sells and produces. In fact, we have a free trade surplus with these countries of over $5 billion. Conversely, much of our trade deficit, 80 percent of it are with countries we don't have free trade agreements with.
Nonetheless, at the same time we have to do a better job of helping those who lose their jobs due to the ever-changing world marketplace. We need to give workers more training options and more flexibility to get back on their feet as soon as possible.
Trade Adjustment Assistance has been successful in helping many adjust to job loss because of trade. The benefits, including the health coverage, tax credit, are very meaningful. Trade Adjustment Assistance can be improved in how it is administered to get people certified and trained more quickly, and changes can be made to get people back to work soon. However, this is an expensive program, costing taxpayers nearly $1 billion while providing assistance for about 54,000 workers per year. Accordingly, as the committee and as this Congress looks forward to covering additional workers who lose their jobs because of trade, we must look at it carefully to make sure we are getting the help to those who need it, that we are doing it efficiently, that we are giving them the educational tools they need to get back to the workforce just as soon as possible. And that is an area that I think will take considerable discussion, but I think there is common ground among Republicans and Democrats to try to make sure that we get as many workers back to work as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
We clearly need to reform and reauthorize TAA. We also need to be sure that we reform trade policy. One is not a substitute for the other. We need to do both.
In the continuing resolution that was passed last February, Congress included language prohibiting the United States Department of Labor from issuing final regulations concerning the TAA program. Critically and problematically, these regulations would contravene Congress's legislative intent in the important policy areas and cause confusion among State and local operators of the TAA program. In short, these regulations would change the very nature of this program, a program specifically committed to ensuring that workers adversely affected by trade get the assistance and training they need to obtain new, good-
paying, family-wage jobs, as I said before.
For example, these rules would, number one, compel States to implement a ``rapid reemployment'' strategy; two, permit States to establish monetary caps on training for dislocated workers; three, compel States to integrate the TAA program into the Workforce Investment Act system; four, permit the privatization of the administration of programs; and, five, abolish merit staff standards.
These rules are extremely troubling. They undermine the program and, more generally, the intent of Congress.
Fortunately, my colleagues on the majority side felt the same way about the Department of Labor proposal. Recognizing the serious implications of these flawed rules, Chairman Obey included the following language in the February continuing resolution:
``None of the funds made available in this division or any other act shall be available to finalize or implement any proposed regulation under the Workforce Investment 12 Act of 1998, Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, or the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002 until such time as legislation reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002 is enacted.''
And I quote that because it is so important.
Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Washington, Adam Smith, who has been working so hard on this issue.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will be yielding to the chairman to ask a question to get a clarification on one point. But, first of all, I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue, and I do want to agree with Representative Brady's comments.
I think trade is very, very important. It has a very positive impact on the economy in this country. We need to work to improve these trade agreements. But what we try to do with Trade Adjustment Assistance is try to help displaced workers.
I have long been troubled by the fact that it's called Trade Adjustment Assistance. I think it should just be called ``adjustment assistance,'' because regardless of where your job goes, it creates a problem that needs to be filled. In fact, many jobs are lost in this country to advancements in technology. Frequently jobs are lost from one part of this country to another part of the country, and those people who have lost those jobs are no more impacted than if we develop a competitive disadvantage with a country and they start taking over some jobs in an area that we used to occupy. In both instances workers need help and we need a broad adjustment program to do that.
I am, however, troubled, as Mr. Levin pointed out, by the regulations that the administration tried to adopt that would pare back the program and, to some degree, limit the ability of displaced workers to get adjustment assistance.
As we have heard from all economists, skills are going to be the critical factor from this point forward in having an employable workforce in this country. We have got to give our workforce access to greater training, greater technology, and more repetitive training. Sorry, that's the wrong way to put it. They have to update their skills more often. Gone pretty much are the days when you could simply have a high school education, find a job with a company that was going to be around forever, and you were set. If we are going to have an economy where change is more rapid, we have to help our workers in this country.
As the gentleman knows, I am a strong supporter of trade agreements, frequently berated by many in my own party for that, but I don't see that as the piece that is causing the problems for our workers. The piece I see is causing the problem for our workers is we have not made enough changes to reflect the rapid change that is facing them. We don't give them enough opportunities to retrain, update their skills for the changes they have to deal with. We don't have adequate health care protection for them when they lose their job as well. These are things that the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act tries to take care of and that I am concerned that those regulations that the administration tried to adopt would undermine. So I am very grateful to have that language in there.
And this is where, if Mr. Levin could just clarify on one point, and I think in our colloquy here we have two questions, but it is really only one. I just want to be clear that the legislation that we are considering today is simply an extension of the existing program, it is not the reauthorization of the program, so that the prohibition contained in the February 2007 continuing resolution on the implementation of the flawed rules that we have referenced remains in effect even if we pass this bill. Is that correct?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. LEVIN. That is absolutely correct. As Chairman Rangel has stated and I have stated at the markup last week, this is an extension of existing law. It is not a reauthorization. As Ranking Member McCrery stated at the markup and as Mr. Herger explained in the remarks he submitted for the Record, this piece of legislation is a simple extension of existing law, nothing more, nothing less. So the prohibition on the implementation of the rules remains fully in effect.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I want to thank you for that clarification and appreciate your work on this issue. I think it is critical that we pass it so that we can move forward and continue Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Equally critical, as you know, Mr. Chairman, I have been working with you and Chairman Rangel and many others on expanding Trade Adjustment Assistance so that more workers can benefit from it. I know right now we are working on a bill with a variety of different ideas. I think it is critical that we do that full-scale reauthorization and that we expand the bill so that it better protects workers, protects more workers, and makes sure that workers in this country can benefit from the new economy so that we don't have to have these constant wars over trade agreements, so that we can focus on taking advantage of the economic opportunities that are there in today's economy by making sure that the workers who are most vulnerable, who need greater skills, have help so that they too can begin to benefit from the economy.
I appreciate your work on this issue. I look forward to working with you. I know in the next few weeks we will be introducing a bill and we will be moving forward on a broader reauthorization.
I simply urge the body to support this short-term extension in the meantime.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the previous speakers as well that there are lots of challenges that face American workers these days. And whether it is from competition here at home or competition from abroad, technology, or just the fact that our economy continues to transition, families need help in moving with that transition, acquiring the education, the skills. We have a huge mismatch between the jobs available in this country and the skills of the workers who can fill them, and it is important that we bridge that gap.
I would close with this point that Congressman Herger has made, I think, in all of these hearings. Trade Adjustment Assistance is just one tool in a larger policy toolbox to help workers and families and communities adjust to the new global economy. Trade Adjustment Assistance isn't the proper response to all job loss. Currently we spend billions of dollars each year through a large number of Federal programs, including Trade Adjustment Assistance, to help Americans who lose their jobs.
I think, as we work on this, you take decades-old Federal programs that need reform today such as TAA, improve their effectiveness, improve their efficiency, make sure that we are really getting that help down to families that need it in a timely way, sometimes in advance of those job losses, with the education debit cards and other new ideas that can help these workers recover more quickly. I just think there is an opportunity to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to try to resolve this and find a real good solution for this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I will close, first of all, if I might, commenting on TAA to the gentleman from Texas and to Mr. McCrery and Mr. Herger, who could not be here, we have a lot of work to do on TAA. We are working on legislation that would reform it as well as reauthorize it, that would expand its scope. To exclude service workers, for example, is no longer acceptable, if it ever was.
We also need to be sure that we remove the obstacles to those who have been eligible on paper for TAA but, because of the obstacles and the complexities within the law, have really not been able to access it.
We also need to look at the health benefit because today only about 10 percent of the people who are eligible for TAA ever are able to access the health benefit.
So as mentioned by my friend from Washington and as I said earlier, as Mr. Rangel has also said publicly, we are working on legislation. We hope to have a draft ready next week, but we want to disseminate it and discuss it within the majority ranks, also to discuss it with the minority, in the hope that perhaps we can obtain strong bipartisan support.
{time} 1445
I don't think it's preordained on trade issues; I guess nothing is preordained. But there will be those discussions. But I want to serve notice that we really need to and intend to proceed, that this extension is not an excuse for the lack of basic action.
And, secondly, I want the record to be entirely clear that TAA reform is critical, but it is no substitute for reform of our trade policy. We need to have programs that help those who are disadvantaged by trade, and for other reasons, to be able to have the opportunity, they have the desire, but also the opportunity to do some retraining, to obtain more education to extend their skills so that they can get back on their feet with a living wage.
We also need to pass reform of trade policy that prevents dislocation in the first place, wherever possible. And to have the notion that simply ``catch those people who fall off because of dislocation'' isn't enough. We have to address the basic issues in trade policy. We began to do that in the Ways and Means Committee today in terms of a Peru FTA that I think are the first steps toward a new trade policy for America. I hope that we can do both and, if at all possible, on a bipartisan basis, but we need to do both.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3375, a bill to extend the Trade Adjustment Assistance program by three months beyond September 30th, when it would otherwise expire.
I introduced this bill to allow Members adequate time to review and carefully consider the range of existing and forthcoming proposals to reform and expand this very complex and important program. As part of this review, our Committee must consider whether any expansions would create duplicative federal programs and how any such expansions to the TAA program would be covered under the ``pay-go'' rules.
TAA can be a valuable tool for retraining people and helping return them to work quickly, but the program is in need of reform to do that job better. Moreover, TAA is an expensive federal program, costing taxpayers nearly $1 billion each year, but providing assistance only to some 54,000 workers per year, amounting to $18,000 per worker. In light of this, any expansion of TAA must be done in a cost conscious manner focusing on actual results.
At the same time, we must be mindful that TAA is just one tool in a larger policy toolbox to help workers, families, and communities adjust to the new global economy. TAA is not the proper response to all job loss.
Today, billions of dollars are provided annually through various Federal programs, including TAA, to help Americans who lose their jobs so that they can adapt and return to productive jobs. However, TAA and these other decades-old Federal programs need to be reformed to improve the services that they provide to address job loss due to trade, globalization, technology, and other reasons.
I look forward to working with my Republican and Democratic colleagues in an effort to develop an effective, fiscally sound, and comprehensive approach that would help more American workers, regardless of the reason for their job loss, get retrained and re-enter the workforce as quickly as possible so they can better adapt to the changing global economy
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3375, a bill to extend the Trade Adjust Assistance or TAA program for 3 months beyond its expiration on September 30th.
I want to acknowledge Mr. Herger, ranking member of the trade subcommittee, for anticipating the need for this extension to ensure there is sufficient time to carefully consider reforms to TAA as well as to our programs to help workers if they lose jobs for reasons other than trade. I also want to thank Chairman Rangel and Chairman Levin for their support of this bill.
I look forward to seeing the two Chairmen's TAA reform proposal. My colleagues and I have been working on our own proposal too. I hope we can craft a bipartisan, cost-effective approach that helps get all dislocated workers--not just the few who lose their jobs due to trade--
retrained and back to work sooner. It is our responsibility to make sure that all Americans have the opportunity to quickly obtain the skills they need to adapt to globalization.
Today, our Committee held a non-markup of the U.S.-Peru FTA and approved, by voice vote, the draft implementing legislation to it. I commend Chairman Rangel for his commitment to quickly move this FTA to passage. At the same time, we must implement the pending FTAs with Panama, Colombia, and Korea to enable our workers and their employers to benefit from the new opportunities created by these FTAs.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3375, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
