Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) laid down the gauntlet on the trade agenda last week, saying he would not support moving any of President Bush’s trade agreements until a new program assisting workers hurt by trade is adopted.

Implicit in the Finance Committee chairman’s speech was the understanding that if Republicans, the business community and Bush support an overhaul of trade adjustment assistance (TAA), which offers training and benefits to workers who lose their jobs because of increased imports, Baucus would help move three controversial trade deals through the Senate.

The problem, of course, is that the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, while powerful, has little say over the House of Representatives. And there is no evidence that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders in the lower chamber have any interest in trading a new worker assistance program for one of the trade deals, let alone all three.

This is partly because labor unions, the key Democratic constituency opposing three trade agreements negotiated by the Bush administration, aren’t that keen on TAA. They certainly don’t think Democrats should trade their support on a trade agreement for Republican support for TAA. To unions, and often to workers who get TAA benefits, the program can be a useful tool for learning a new trade, but it does not replace the lost job.

Talk of a TAA-for-trade deal has moved through trade circles for months, partly because TAA in the past has been a bargaining chip for free traders. In 2002, a new TAA bill that for the first time offered workers a refundable tax credit to help them pay for health insurance was the price Republicans and Bush paid for fast-track authority, under which trade agreements can be sent to Congress for up-or-down votes but cannot be amended. Baucus, a longtime advocate for TAA, was a key part of that deal.

Bush last week connected trade and worker assistance in his State of the Union address. After urging Congress to approve deals negotiated last year with Panama, South Korea and particularly Colombia, Bush called for an overhaul of TAA, saying this would help displaced workers learn new skills and find new jobs.

Business groups have also been talking up worker assistance. Last week, The Business Roundtable (BRT), which represents the nation’s largest multinational companies, called for Congress to appoint and fund a commission to help displaced workers find training, assistance and education. The BRT was careful not to cast its proposal as assistance for workers negatively affected by globalization, however. Instead, it sees the assistance as benefiting workers displaced by any number of factors.

In the end, it might be in the best interests of the administration and business to support a TAA overhaul, even if Baucus can’t deliver on his implicit message. Polls indicate growing skepticism about the benefits of globalization, which is fueling a protectionist backlash that could make it even more difficult to move forward on free trade for a future administration, be it Republican or Democratic.

Providing help to workers hurt by trade won’t extinguish protectionist fire, but it certainly won’t hurt efforts to help the U.S. adapt to globalization.