Copyright 2000 The National Journal, Inc.
The National Journal
MARCH 11, 2000
SECTION: ECONOMICS; Pg. 807; Vol. 32, No. 11
LENGTH: 909 words
HEADLINE: It
Won't Be Pretty
BYLINE: Bruce Stokes
HIGHLIGHT:
With the push for a trade deal with
China comes a rash of down-
and-dirty politicking.
BODY:
Step right up,
ladies and gentlemen. The trade bazaar is
about to open. Innocents, cover
your eyes. The Clinton
Administration's decision to send legislation up to
Capitol Hill
granting China permanent normal trade relations has, in a
single
stroke, transformed Washington's running debate about Chinese
membership in the World Trade Organization. Say goodbye to recent
high-brow discussions about China's future in the global economy.
Get
ready for down-and-dirty deal-making, as the White House
scrambles to
assemble a congressional majority by its self-
imposed summer deadline.
"Now it's all about getting them to yes," a U.S.
trade
official said. The White House believes that most members of
Congress support the notion of increasing trade with China. But
the
Clinton gang also realizes that many members may need a
reason-or political
cover-to actually vote that way. In the weeks
ahead, the Administration must
identify those hidden needs and
satisfy them: more exports from one
district, for example. Or a
judgeship for someone's brother-in-law. Or
campaign cash to
compensate for the loss of support from organized labor,
which
opposes seating China in the WTO.
Harbor
no illusions. This will be legislative sausage-
making at its crudest. The
only question is, will it work?
Retail trade
politics is hardly new. In November 1997, as
the Administration attempted to
persuade Congress to pass fast-
track trade negotiating authority, Rep.
David R. Obey, D-Wis.,
asked then-Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob
Livingston, R-
La., during an exchange on the House floor: "Does the
gentleman
know how many bridges the Administration has given away today to
pick up votes?" Livingston quipped: "This gentleman does not have
sufficient fingers to count." The moral of this little
interchange is
not that congressional votes may be up for grabs
but that such efforts
didn't work in this case. The White House
couldn't muster a majority, and
fast-track failed.
The Administration faces the same
danger this year over
the China issue, even though Congress's vote shouldn't
even be
close because the substance of the deal is so compelling. Beijing
has agreed to dramatic reductions in tariffs, to new
opportunities for
American investments in China, and to new
protections against surges of
exports from China.
Based on prospective increases
in Farm Belt exports to
China, the Administration is looking to the
agricultural
community to deliver solid farm-state backing on the China
vote.
But that support is already fraying.
"The
Chinese are in serious denial about the commitments
they have made about
meat and poultry," said Nick Giordano, the
international trade counsel for
the National Pork Producers
Council. "They are jeopardizing the support of
the meat and
poultry industry."
And the
Administration has no latitude to sweeten the
deal. In 1993, during the Hill
debate over the North American
Free Trade Agreement, the White House used
congressional concerns
to extract additional concessions from Mexico. China
won't play
that game. During the NAFTA skirmish, the Administration made
numerous promises to "fix" problems for wavering members of
Congress.
Many on Capitol Hill remember that the White House
failed to deliver on
several of those commitments.
If you can't sway them
on the substance, however, there
is always pork. Nothing catches the
attention of a fence-sitting
lawmaker like the sudden interest by the Army
Corps of Engineers
in a long-stalled dam or levee project.
But this is not 1993-or even 1997. Most promises by a
lame-duck
Administration are simply worthless. A President Bush
would certainly be
under no obligation to honor Clinton's
pledges. Vice President Al Gore needs
to remind fence-sitting
Democrats that he will be indebted to them for their
votes if he
becomes President. But Gore has shown no inclination to issue
such a reminder.
Finally, American business can
promise China-backers its
support in this fall's election. But the value of
such a pledge
is already in question. Moderate Democrats likely to vote for
the
China legislation were shaken in early March when the U.S.
Chamber
of Commerce endorsed the GOP challenger to freshman Rep.
Baron Hill, D-Ind.,
who supports expanded trade with China. The
decision crystallized New
Democrats' worst fears-the business
community won't come to their rescue if
they incur the wrath of
organized labor by voting for the China legislation.
"We want to support those members who are with us on
trade," explained Bill Miller, the political director of the
chamber.
"But if we sacrifice the business agenda for one vote,
we risk our
effectiveness on a whole array of business issues."
"That tells me that PNTR is not their No. 1 priority,"
said Rep. Robert T. Matsui, D-Calif., who favors the bill. "A
partisan
House is their priority." In such an environment, the
White House won't be
able to depend on traditional retail
politics to deliver a close vote. "This
won't get down to one or
two votes," predicted a former U.S. trade official.
Either the
momentum will be there, he implied, or the Administration will
pull the bill rather than risk failure. Let the bidding begin.
LOAD-DATE: March 13, 2000 
