TAA shifted the trade debate by acknowledging more fully in legislation the costs of trade liberalization. It was also politically effective, generating support from labor constituencies without turning to more protectionist responses. It is notable that a relatively lengthy and broad "negotiating authority" was achieved in a bill that also included TAA for the first time. Despite passage with bipartisan support, it was, nonetheless, the most controversial aspect of the bill. The House mounted stiff resistance to TAA from Republicans and some conservative Democrats, who objected to special treatment for tariff-affected workers and firms, and who sought a separate vote on TAA. Despite this effort, the bill was debated under a closed rule, prohibiting amendments, and passed with bipartisan support, despite a majority of House Republicans voting against it. The Senate rejected attempts to delete or modify the TAA provisions, and proceeded to pass the bill with broad support and only minor amendments.29
After a lengthy and exhaustive legislative process, however, the final bill that would become the Trade Act of 2002 incorporated TAA, TPA, and a host of other trade issues. Despite Republican opposition to the TAA language, Congress revised and expanded TAA programs for five years, through September 30, 2007. Among the key new features, the bill merged NAFTA-TAA with the general program, created government-subsidized health insurance (Health Coverage Tax Credit) for dislocated workers, altered eligibility criteria to include secondary or downstream workers affected by imports, and added a new program for farmers. The bill as a whole passed in a tense, close, and some have argued, a bipartisan vote.47 At this juncture, TAA had once again worked its way into the center of the trade policy debate and trade-related legislation.
the turning tide bill baldwin epub 30
Many House Republicans and the Bush Administration supported TAA reauthorization, but came out against the Democratic option, offering a substitute version instead. They took issue with both the expanded eligibility and spending levels, arguing that they failed to make the needed reforms in efficiency, flexibility, oversight, and program delivery that would make TAA more useful and cost effective. The Republican position also pressed for tying TAA reauthorization to legislation that would renew TPA and implement bills for the then-pending FTAs with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, whereas the Democrats argued that TAA should be reauthorized apart from these issues.49
The House Ways and Means Committee reported favorably on the bill, but the votes on the chairman's language and multiple amendments offered by Republicans were taken along party lines. The full House passed H.R. 3920 on October 31, 2007. The bill was sent to the Senate for consideration, where a companion (but not identical) bill (S. 1848) had been introduced. The Senate, however, did not take up a TAA bill and program authorizations expired on December 31, 2007. In not reauthorizing TAA, the 110th Congress instead provided short-term funding through consolidated appropriation bills to keep the TAA programs running (see Appendix for legislative chronology).50
TAA faced at least two hurdles given Republican opposition. First, once introduced, the FTA implementing bills had to be voted on, but TAA was subject to consideration under normal rules. Therefore, if TAA did not pass ahead of these bills, there was no leverage or certainty that it would be approved afterward in the Republican House. Second, Senate action could not be guaranteed either given the possibility of filibuster. The legislative procedures that were agreed to had the Senate act first on TAA. Along with House Republican assurances, these procedures were intended to minimize, if not eliminate, the possibility on inaction on TAA. 2ff7e9595c
Comments