The trade debate

By Michael Barone

The House is scheduled to vote Thursday on whether to grant the president trade promotion authority–the new and more accurate name for what used to be called fast-track authority. It would allow the president to negotiate trade agreements, which Congress would then vote up or down in toto, without amendments. From the 1950s until 1994, every president had trade promotion authority, and it was essential to the approval of worldwide trade agreements. But in 1994, trade promotion authority lapsed. Bill Clinton tried but failed to get it renewed, because few of his fellow Democrats voted for it. When House Republicans brought it up again, Democrats claimed that the Republicans were just trying to embarrass them, and, again, gave it virtually no support.

It is a measure of how much the country is focused on the war against terrorism that the press has given little attention to this, even though it is the biggest trade issue likely to arise during George W. Bush's term.Its fate will decide whether the world will continue on its post-World War II march toward freer trade or whether it will splinter into hostile trade blocs or move back toward protectionism.

At this writing, vote counters on both sides agree that trade promotion authority lacks the votes to pass. Only a handful of Democrats have come out in support, and Republicans responsive to the protectionist pleas of the textile, steel, and citrus lobbies are opposed or uncommitted. This is the kind of vote presidents usually win. They weigh in at the last minute, dispensing concessions or promises, and tell wavering members that the whole future course of American trade policy depends on them. Both Republican and Democratic House sources believe it's likely Bush will prevail and trade promotion authority will pass. Yet, it's a high-risk enterprise. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, who wrote the bill (with three moderate Democrats), says it's one of those issues where you call it up knowing that you're shy of votes but optimistic you will be able to squeeze out enough on the floor to win. House Republican Whip Tom DeLay is very good at squeezing out votes. But even he can have a bad day.

One of the interesting things about the trade promotion authority fight is the almost unanimous opposition of House Democrats. Historically, Democrats were the party of free trade and Republicans the party of protectionism. The top domestic legislative priority of the first two years of the Kennedy administration was free-trade legislation. Most House Democrats voted for it and most Republicans voted against it; in the Senate most of the votes against were cast by Republicans, and weakening amendments were offered by Sen. Prescott Bush (R-Conn.), George W. Bush's grandfather. But starting in the 1970s, labor unions, especially the United Steelworkers and United Auto Workers, sought protection against foreign competition. Today the strongest opposition to trade promotion authority comes from the AFL-CIO.

This is true even though the number of USW and UAW members has sharply declined since the 1970s, and nearly half of AFL-CIO members today are public employees, whose jobs are not endangered by foreign workers and who would benefit from lower-cost imported goods. And the large majority of House Democrats have followed, even though most of them represent relatively few workers with jobs at risk from foreign competition. Free-trade advocates even have to beg for votes from Democrats representing high-tech districts even though high-tech Democratic contributors are strongly for trade promotion authority.

As president, Bill Clinton supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, and trade promotion authority. But this is just a memory, one most House Democrats seem to have forgotten. The motivation of the AFL-CIO seems plain. The left-wing staff installed by President John Sweeney threw the AFL-CIO into the demonstrations against globalization at the WTO meeting in Seattle two years ago this month. (It should be noted that AFL-CIO demonstrators did not engage in violence and that, after September 11, Sweeney issued a strong statement supporting the war against global terrorism and announced the AFL-CIO would not join further anti-globalization demonstrations.) The AFL-CIO opposes the spread of free markets and wants governments to maintain barriers to freeze the current economy in place. Its leaders are, in Virginia Postrel's typology, believers in stasis rather than dynamism. Rep. Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat, writes in the Washington Post that Thomas and the Bush administration failed to produce a bill that addresses labor and environmental standards adequately. But U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick argues that the Thomas bill does more to address these issues than the Clinton trade promotion authority measures; and the fact is that the Thomas bill is the only vehicle on offer. The vote Thursday will determine whether America and the world move toward freer trade in this decade–or not.