Inside US Trade | September 28, 2001
A new fast-track proposal developed by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) with three members of the Democratic caucus this week became mired in political controversy over whether it should be rushed through the Congress.
Key Democrats, including Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO), have conveyed a message to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and to the White House that moving forward on fast track at this time would jeopardize the bipartisan approach that has characterized congressional work on a pared back domestic agenda since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
Senior Administration officials this week emphasized that the White House wants to move forward on fast track, but it is unclear whether the Administration would do so at the expense of the bipartisanship that has prevailed since the attacks.
In unveiling the proposal to business groups on Sept. 26, Thomas indicated his desire to move forward as quickly as possible, which observers say would likely mean the week of Oct. 8. Earlier in the week, Rep. Jennifer Dunne (R-WA) had indicated that a markup was "very likely" the week of Oct. 1.
However, Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) told the Democratic Leadership Council that Thomas is considering delaying the markup if a broader compromise with House Democrats seems possible, according to informed sources. Jefferson said that he could get four to six Democratic votes in the Ways & Means Committee for the new fast-track proposal.
Jefferson also said that members of the Democratic caucus have offered a mixed reaction to the proposal. Some were surprised that Republicans would go as far as they had on labor and environmental provisions, and others were critical of the New Democrats for striking a deal with Thomas that put the rest of the caucus in a difficult position.
On Sept. 26, Thomas also said that the White House "loved" his proposal, but sources pointed out that the Administration has not yet taken a position on the measure. The Administration is examining the proposal now, but would likely have to see the legislative language to take a position.
One issue that may pose a difficult challenge for the Administration is the proposal's offer of parity of enforcement between trade concessions and labor and environmental provisions covered in trade agreements. This could pose a problem because it would set up a requirement that is not met in existing agreements.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said on Sept. 24 he had not seen the Thomas proposal but that he had been told by "pro-trade Democrats" that it would be "enough for any Democrat that really wants to support trade." On Sept. 24, Zoellick said that the next week or two would determine whether fast track would pass.
Business groups like the Emergency Committee for American Trade and the National Assn. of Manufacturers this week welcomed the compromise as a step forward in trying to reach a bipartisan compromise.
In order to be successful, Thomas must be able to at least appease Ranking Committee member Charles Rangel (D-NY) who this week was highly critical of the way Thomas had developed the compromise bill with three New Democrats as well as the rush to action. In such a scenario, Rangel would not vote for the bill, but would not work to generate opposition among other Democrats, business sources said.
Some lobbyists believe they no longer need Rangel's active support to pass the bill since more Republicans are willing to support fast track in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. One source speculated that it may take as few as 20 Democrats to pass a fast-track bill in the House, but others disputed that assessment as overly optimistic.
Zoellick said more Republicans that had been "on the fence" on fast track have now vowed to support President Bush at a "moment of national challenge."
The Democrats that worked with Thomas on the bill are Reps. Cal Dooley (D-CA), John Tanner (D-TN) and Jefferson. Jefferson told a Sept. 26 session of the DLC that Zoellick needed to back away from framing the fast-track debate as a national security issue because it was harmful, according to participants. He also expressed concern over how Republicans had handled the process and particularly that Rangel and Thomas were not engaged in the fast-track issue, they said.
For example, Jefferson and Tanner had promised their leadership that they would not participate in a press conference that Thomas had considered for Sept. 26 but ultimately never held.
Rangel this week expressed strong displeasure with the way the process on fast track has been handled and efforts by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick to portray it as a national security response. "As a combat war veteran and as a person whose city has been attacked and suffered devastating losses as a result, I am offended by the strategy of the current U.S. Trade Representative to use the tragedy of New York and at the Pentagon to fuel political momentum behind a partisan 'Fast-Track' proposal," he said in the statement. "To have the USTR attack the patriotism of Americans for their failure to support an unwritten, undisclosed bill demands a public apology."
In a Sept. 26 statement, Rangel also pointed out that Tanner and Jefferson do not support efforts to make a vote on fast-track a test of patriotism as Zoellick has suggested.
He also charged that the process of developing the bill has excluded him and other Democratic leaders by emphasizing that there has been "no substantive discussion" with the Democratic leadership of the committee or the House. Rangel directly contradicted Zoellick's public claims that he had consulted with a number of Democrats who he said had shown increased interest in moving the bill after the attacks of Sept. 11.
This followed Rangel's comments on Sept. 25 that a session of House Ways & Means Democrats afforded him the first opportunity to learn of the fast-track proposal discussed between Thomas and the three New Democrats. According to Rangel, neither the Administration nor the Speaker's office had been able to provide him with information on the pending bill.
Similarly, Rep. Bob Matsui (D-CA) strongly spoke out against Zoellick's efforts to portray a fast-track vote as a national security issue, an approach also endorsed by House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX). On Sept. 25, Matsui criticized Zoellick for linking support for the bill to patrotism. "I was very offended by what Bob Zoellick said that this was an issue of patriotism," he said. "This is just an issue of trade policy, it has nothing to do with terrorism, it has nothing to do with the U.S. going to war against bin Laden."
Matsui said as a result of Zoellick's tactics he would vote against a fast-track bill if it came up in committee next week. "I'll not only vote no, but I'll work against it, strongly against it," he told Inside U.S. Trade. He added that it was "insulting" for Zoellick to suggest that opponents of fast track were not loyal to the U.S. fight against terrorism.
Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) said that there is a "widespread feeling" within in the Democratic caucus that proceeding with a markup next week on a fast-track bill endorsed by a small number of Democrats would undermine the bipartisan approach that has characterized Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Levin said that the decision on how to proceed is one for the leadership and suggested that Thomas should talk to Hastert, who then should talk to Democratic leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO).
In a Sept. 24 speech to the Institute for International Economics, Zoellick emphasized the importance of passing fast-track legislation post-Sept. 11 as a signal of U.S. determination to stay engaged in the world and to support the international economy. He also raised the possibility of an intellectual connection between terrorists and "others who have turned to violence to attack international finance, globalization and the United States" as was suggested by a recent editorial in the New Republic.
Beyond that, Zoellick repeated his long-standing charges that members' failure to support fast track was either due to "rather narrow interests" that provided financial support or outright opposition to any trade liberalization.
In response to Rangel's demands for a public apology, Zoellick denied having made a fast-track vote a "litmus test of patriotism." He also denied Rangel's charges of having been excluded from the process by insisting that he has "consulted with him regularly" and said he had met with "over 100 members of Congress" on both sides of the aisle on fast track. Zoellick insisted he had a "lengthy and cordial conversation" with Rangel on Sept. 21, according to a Sept. 26 statement. It was issued after he had departed for Russia.
The national security argument followed a statement by Thomas on Sept. 20 that he did not see fast track in an economic stimulus package, as he had initially signaled. Thomas's chief trade aide told a business group in a closed session the following day that it would likely be too divisive to include fast track into the package that was being developed with the participation of Democrats. But in the Sept. 21 comments, the aide emphasized that the issue had not been decided definitively.
In the Senate, Senate Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wants to include the measure in an economic stimulus package but chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) seems to be cool to this idea.
Zoellick's chief of staff, M.B. Oglesby, has also called on business to push fast track as a national security issue, according to informed sources. Business calls for fast track, in the form of public statements and letters released this week, indirectly reflect some of that argument.
A U.S. High-Tech Coalition letter said that granting fast track would be an "important signal" to the international trading system that the U.S. remains steadfast in its global leadership. A statement issued by the National Pork Producers Council says that fast track represents "confidence in the power of freedom, confidence in free markets and confidence in the future. The Sept. 25 statement says that failure to pass fast track would be a "colossal missed opportunity" at a "time when the U.S. is leading the world against the forces of oppression and terror."Inside US Trade:
