The Senate, after five weeks of contentious
debate and consideration of numerous amendments,
passed the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA,
formerly known as "fast track") bill by a vote of
66-30. Forty-one Republicans were joined by
twenty-four Democrats and one Independent in
voting for the bill. Five Republicans and
twenty-five Democrats opposed it.
This bill, as approved, would give President Bush
the authority to reach trade agreements that are
largely immune from congressional tinkering, but
would greatly increase aid to workers who lose
their jobs because of foreign competition. The
President intends to use this authority to create
the world's largest free trade zone by expanding
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
to 31 additional countries, mostly in Latin
America, by the end of his first term.
Renewed trade promotion authority - which would
expire in 2005 - would also allow Bush to move
forward with major new treaties that could
involve much of Europe, Singapore and the World
Trade Organization. This is the first time in
eight years that both houses of Congress have
agreed to grant the White House the enhanced
negotiating powers.
However, the Senate bill differs significantly
from the version passed by the House of
Representatives by one vote last December.
Difficult negotiations are expected when the two
bodies meet to iron out the differences and craft
a compromise bill. How these important
differences are worked out will determine whether
President Bush can pick up the Democratic votes
he needs in the evenly divided House to make up
for expected Republican defectors.
At heart, the House bill is a much more partisan
package than the Senate version that includes
many more Democratic priorities. The main
difference is that the latter bill contains
"worker assistance" or a trade adjustment
assistance provision - something the Democrats
insist must be in the bill.
The trade adjustment assistance program dates to
the 1970s and is meant to give temporary help to
workers who lose jobs because of foreign
competition. The Senate package would triple the
existing program, to about $1.2 billion a year,
while also introducing some first-time
entitlements that many Republicans want to see
stripped away. One provision would provide
government subsidies for unemployed workers to
buy health insurance, while another would give as
much as $5,000 a year in "wage insurance" to
displaced workers over 50 who end up taking lower
paying jobs.
Another very touchy issue, and one that the White
House has threatened is a "killer" amendment that
will result in a presidential veto if left in the
bill, is the so-called "Dayton-Craig" amendment.
This would allow the Congress to delete any
portion of future trade pacts that might weaken
trade remedy laws protecting US industries from
unfair practices, such as subsidies and dumping.
This amendment would basically block the next
round of multilateral negotiations. During the
multilateral negotiations held in Doha, USTR
Ambassador Zoellick agreed to put US dumping laws
on the discussion table, with the assumption that
he would have the authority to negotiate with our
trading partners on behalf of the president.
However, the Dayton-Craig Amendment would require
any agreements reached on trade remedy laws to be
subject to change by Congress because they would
not be covered by Trade Promotion Authority. None
of our trading partners want to negotiate these
laws if the Congress can change the final
agreement. However, many countries insist that
the US put these laws on the table, or there
would be no next round. So, in the end, if
passed, this amendment could kill the next round
of multilateral negotiations.
Leaders in both parties expect the amendment to
be stripped away in conference, but doing so
could lose support among House members who have
been heavily lobbied by the steel, textiles and
lumber producers who support protectionist
measures. Additionally, more than 100 Democrats,
including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt
(MO), signed a letter to House Speaker Hastert to
urge that the trade remedies amendment be
retained, and even expanded in the upcoming
conference on the trade bill.
These supporters point out that last year, 410
House members voted for a resolution offered by
Rep. Phil English (R-PA), which urged USTR
Ambassador Zoellick not to put trade remedies on
the table at the World Trade Organization Summit
in Doha. House Democrats have announced that they
will center their efforts during the conference
on ensuring that the provision remains in the
bill.
Some Republicans also worry that some of their
House colleagues, who voted for the fast-track
bill in December when support for the president
was seen as a patriotic duty, could fall to the
wayside. The November elections could also cause
some lawmakers to oppose the bill if it costs
them support among voters.
One amendment that did not pass and also was seen
as a "killer" amendment was the steelworker
retiree provision proposed by Sens. Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).
This amendment was a scaled down version of a
bill (S 2189) sponsored by Rockefeller and Sen.
Arlen Specter (R-PA) that would use government
funds to finance health care "legacy costs" for
steelworkers. This bill would create a federal
trust fund to pay for the health care and limited
life insurance costs for steel industry retirees
whose employers go out of business or are
acquired by another company. Advocates of the
measure argue that health care legacy costs are
preventing solvent companies from purchasing
floundering steel manufacturers.
The pared-down proposal that was defeated during
the TPA debate would have provided health
insurance subsidies for only one year to
steelworker retirees who lose their benefits
within the next five years. Steelworker retirees
and their dependents would be eligible for the
assistance if they had worked for at least 15
years in an American steel mill. As drafted,
Rockefeller said, 85,000 would qualify for the
one-year health care subsidy.
The amendment became subject to a filibuster by
Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX). The provision was
defeated when a cloture vote was taken. The final
vote was 56-40 for cloture - four short of what
was needed to end the filibuster. However, one
important note is that the provision received
well beyond a simple majority of support. Six
Republicans voted for cloture, and Majority
Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) said that there was one
Democratic absent, which would have increased the
vote to 57. Daschle also vowed to pursue the
issue "for whatever length of time it takes to be
successful." Sen. Rockefeller has also vowed to
continue pushing this bill. He plans to focus his
efforts now on getting it included in some
appropriations legislation.
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS)
predicted that if; "by some quirk" the proposal
actually is approved by Congress, "the president
will veto it." The Senator added that he is upset
with steelworkers" requests that the government
pay for "sweetheart" deals agreed to in
collective bargaining. "It's souring my attitude
toward the steel industry as a whole," he said.
"It's undermining sympathetic supporters like
me."� Lott concluded, "My message to the
steelworkers is back off."
A GOP source said Lott may be irked at the
industry because of the great lengths to which
the Bush Administration has gone to appease steel
manufacturers. Bush took considerable flak from
his own party for his decision to use tariffs to
protect the industry from foreign imports in the
recent Steel Section 201 case.
Sponsors of the TPA bills said they hope to have
a final bill ready for Bush's signature by
August. However, Senate Finance Committee Ranking
Member Charles Grassley (R-IA) predicted that
this would not happen, perhaps not even before
the fall.
Back to Wireline
Contents
American Wire Producers
Association
801 North Fairfax Street, Suite 211
Alexandria, VA 22314-1757
Tel (703) 299-4434 | Fax (703) 299-9233 | E-mail
info@awpa.org
| Web: www.awpa.org
