Washington Post | December 12, 2001 | By David S. Broder
The 215-214 vote by which the House of Representatives last week passed the bill restoring to President Bush broad authority to negotiate international trade agreements was as significant as it was dramatic. Never have I seen more lobbyists lined up outside the House chamber and on the sidewalk to the Capitol. Never have I seen a vote held open for more than the extra 23 minutes it took the Republican leadership to corral a reluctant handful of representatives and reverse a looming defeat.
It was, on the face of it, a great victory for President Bush and his congressional allies. Starting with the Ford administration, Congress had given presidents of both parties the power to sign trade deals that could be voted up or down by Congress, but not amended. This "fast track" authority, now renamed "trade promotion authority," lapsed in 1994, and President Clinton was unable to get it renewed. Bush made it a high priority, and the Senate is almost certain to complete the process as he wishes.
But it could be a short-lived or costly win for the GOP. In the global economy, trade agreements are as important as treaties or alliances. The national interest is best served in all these world affairs when U.S. policy commands bipartisan support here at home. This was a nakedly partisan vote. Republicans were able to enlist only 21 Democrats to offset the 23 defections in their own ranks.
The bill passed only after heavy pressure from the White House was followed by undisguised promises of specific concessions to reluctant Republicans -- some of them so crass that the measure's Republican manager, Rep. Bill Thomas of California, was seen signaling to his friends on the House floor that he could not stomach the deals.
Even before the vote, House Democratic leadership aides were gleefully showing reporters lists of Republican members, from textile and industrial districts adversely affected by imports, who would be hurt politically by voting for the bill. The ads and statements attacking those members began the very next day, and will escalate right up to next November. In a recession, with unemployment rising, the vote could jeopardize the shaky Republican control of the House.
But when I talked to Robert Zoellick, the top trade official in the Bush administration, he saw the vote in a very different light. "It moves us forward in our overall goal of regaining momentum on trade both domestically and internationally," he said. Zoellick, an able retread from the earlier Bush administration, now heading the White House Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, had won his negotiating spurs at the recent World Trade Organization meeting in Doha, Qatar, launching a new round of international negotiations. He has ambitious goals to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement to all of Latin America, to open more trade with Africa and to conclude bilateral free trade agreements with countries such as Chile and Singapore.
Zoellick is a skilled and creative public official, a protege of James Baker, who had an exquisite ear for domestic politics. But I did not get a sense of deep concern from him about what seems clearly to be the warning signals from Congress that future trade liberalization agreements could be hard to sell.
Polls consistently show the majority of the public thinks we lose jobs, not gain them, by opening markets here and abroad. That is clearly wrong in the aggregate, but the statistics are overwhelmed by announcements that specific plants are closing because the company is relocating its manufacturing to Mexico or Ireland or India.
Last week's vote saw longtime supporters of liberal trade, such as Reps. Jim McDermott of Seattle and Robert Matsui of Sacramento, vote against fast track. A whole flock of New Democrats, many representing high-tech communities dependent on export markets, did the same thing.
The reason they give is that trade agreements now go far beyond tariff reduction and involve tradeoffs on intellectual property rights, environmental standards, basic labor laws and other issues of such importance to their constituents that they are reluctant to delegate sweeping authority to any administration to negotiate them away.
Unless these issues are addressed in a way that gives comfort and confidence to these basically pro-trade legislators -- people who are by no means protectionists -- the future of U.S. trade policy is in jeopardy.
The World Bank last week issued a report documenting how expanded trade had improved economies and reduced poverty in two dozen underdeveloped countries. The cost to this country -- and to the developing world -- of the United States' abandoning its leadership on trade would be calamitous. The threatening message of the House vote cannot be ignored.
c 2001 The Washington Post CompanyWashington Post:
