US-TRADE: Fast-Track Prospects Cloudy After Key Test

By Jim Lobe Reprint | | Print |

Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Oct 8 1997 (IPS) - President Bill Clinton hoped he would have some momentum on gaining “fast-track” authority to negotiate new free trade accords with Latin American countries with him when he travels to South America Sunday.

A disappointing vote in a key Congressional committee meeting however, left his prospects for winning fast track as cloudy as ever.

The powerful Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives voted 24-14 on Wednesday to approve a fast-track bill negotiated by Committee chairman, Rep. Bill Archer, and senior administration officials. But the bill had the support of only four of 16 Democrats on the Committee and boded ill for the bill’s fate on the house floor.

Political analysts believed at least six Democratic votes were needed to restore momentum to the administration’s fast-track campaign.

“I am worried (about) whether we will have enough support to pass it on the floor,” said a disappointed Archer after the vote. “The cause of free trade is in trouble, clearly, unless Democrats do much better.”

At least 45 House Democrats must vote for fast-track when the measure comes to the floor to assure passage, political observers believe. Their votes, combined with the certain support of as much as 75 percent of the majority Republicans, would permit the bill to squeak by in the 435-seat House – the key battleground where fast-track’s future will be won or lost.

Before Wednesday’s vote, observers agreed that six Democratic supporters of Archer’s bill would translate on the floor to as many as 60 Democratic supporters. It would have made the prospects for final passage much brighter and given Clinton something to be hopeful about next week when he talks with the leaders of Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina.

In the event, only four Democrats rallied to Clinton’s side. “That’s an awfully weak showing,” said one Congressional aide, who noted that Clinton had personally lobbied 10 swing Democrats on the committee Tuesday night at the White House.

Fast-track authority gives the president the power to negotiate new trade agreements with other nations without having to worry that they can be amended by Congress. Under fast-track rules, trade accords must be acted on within 60 days of their submission to Congress, which can vote only on whether to approve or reject them.

Clinton is eager to obtain fast track to negotiate new free- trade accords – particularly with Latin American and Asian countries – and to participate fully in upcoming multilateral trade negotiations on agriculture, telecommunications, and other sectors in which the United States is a major exporter.

He had been hoping to have fast-track authority approved by the time he set out on his South American tour. His three destinations were selected earlier this year precisely because of their importance in the negotiations of an eventual Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) proposed by Clinton at the Dec. 1994 Miami Summit.

Prospects for swift Congressional action began to fade last month when Clinton failed to meet a Sep 10 deadline for presenting the proposal and then deferred to new versions offered by the Republican leadership.

The president’s fast-track authority expired shortly after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect in Jan 1994, and Clinton, worried about the negative perceptions and public opinion surveys about that pact since the peso meltdown of 1995-96, delayed submitting a new package.

The administration was caught between conflicting demands by Republican and Democratic lawmakers. Led by House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt and backed by labour unions, most Democrats said they would oppose any fast-track proposal which did not include tough sanctions against trading partners which fail to adequately protect worker rights and the environment.

They argued that, without such protections, new trade agreements would simply encourage capital to flee to low-wage countries where labour rights and environmental standards were weak or unenforced.

Business-backed Republicans, on the other hand, vowed to oppose any fast-track measure which included such protections which, they argued, could be used to restrain trade and even modify U.S. labour and environmental laws without Congress’ approval.

When it did present its own proposal in mid-September, the administration tried to split the difference between the two sides. Under its version, environmental and labour protections would be covered in the pact only if they were “directly related to trade.” It also pledged to seek “side agreements” on more general environmental and labour matters, similar to those reached between the United States, Canada, and Mexico under NAFTA.

In addition, Clinton said he would seek the implementation and enforcement of tougher environmental and labour rights standards in multilateral forums, such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

These provisions were denounced by Gephardt and Democrats as hollow because the proposed bill provided no “teeth” or sanctions against violations of environmental and labour standards. Republicans, too, initially assailed the Clinton plan, insisting that it provided to much protection in these areas.

Last week, however, the Senate Finance Committee voted to approve a fast-track bill that was close enough to Clinton’s version to gain the administration’s support.

Archer then introduced a tougher bill that weaken protections on labour, health, safety and the environment that were included in the Senate’s version by dropping it from the legislation itself and including it instead in a report that would accompany the bill.

That was too much even for the administration which, after intensive talks with Archer, persuaded him to make his draft more compatible with the Senate’s. In exchange, the administration agreed to round up Democratic support, which, however, was lacking once the votes were cast.