Copyright 2000 The National Journal, Inc.
The National Journal
September 16, 2000
SECTION: CONGRESS; Pg. 2876; Vol. 32, No. 38
LENGTH: 1765 words
HEADLINE: A
Cease-Fire in the Trade War
BYLINE: Richard E. Cohen
BODY:
During the spring, Washington was
consumed by the bitter brawls
among divided House Democrats over President
Clinton's request to
grant permanent normal trade relations to China. But
this week,
as the Senate headed toward certain approval of the legislation,
it was obvious that the debate had taken an odd turn: Democratic
Senators displayed striking harmony in support for the measure.
What's going on here? The answer has little to do
with
the world of international trade. It rests more on the
differences
between the House and the Senate, the influence of
interest groups such as
organized labor and agriculture, and the
fact that an election is less than
eight weeks away.
Organized labor waged an all-out
campaign in the House
against the China PNTR legislation, a
bill widely endorsed by
Republicans and the business community. Many House
Democrats paid
heed to labor because it is the primary source of money and
grass-roots support in their intense battle to take back control
of the
chamber in the November elections.
By contrast, the
labor movement from the start wrote off
its prospects of torpedoing the
PNTR legislation in the Senate-
where, at least until
recently, Democrats have voiced little
optimism about regaining control.
"The House-Senate difference
has been clear for years. The Senate has been
more free-trade-
oriented," said Peggy Taylor, the AFL-CIO's director of
legislative affairs.
That dichotomy has produced
some peculiar results. For
example, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.-a staunch
labor ally on
domestic issues-backed the China trade bill. His support
helped
to persuade two undecided House Democrats from Massachusetts to
vote in favor of the legislation, and produced grumbling among
House
foes. But Kennedy's son, Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode
Island-who chairs
the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee-has been an outspoken
PNTR opponent.
Moreover, Capitol
Hill's top two Democratic leaders, who
almost always agree on political
strategy, took starkly different
approaches on the legislation. Senate
Minority Leader Thomas A.
Daschle, D-S.D., pushed aggressively for approval
in his chamber,
worked closely with the White House, and firmly opposed any
amendment that would impede the legislation. In the House,
Minority
Leader Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., distanced himself
from Clinton and
vigorously opposed the bill. During a long-
awaited speech in April,
Gephardt called it "carte blanche handed
to (China) by the world community."
Interestingly, however, Daschle in recent weeks
largely
confined his support for PNTR to the backrooms of
Congress.
Perhaps he was seeking to avoid an untimely public rearing of the
congressional Democrats' divisions, especially as the election
nears.
The contrast between the two party leaders reflects
not
only the stylistic differences between the typically low-profile
Daschle and the presidential-minded Gephardt, but also their
distinct
constituencies. Gephardt's largely blue-collar district
in St. Louis has
suffered from the decline of the manufacturing
base throughout the Midwest
and fears further domestic-job losses
to low-paid labor overseas. But
Daschle's rural constituents
count on increased grain sales to China to
greatly benefit them.
In fact, the significantly
greater influence of
agricultural interests on Senate Democrats-compared
with their
House counterparts-was a major factor in their support for the
PNTR bill. Take Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a leading
supporter who
has talked up the legislation among groups as diverse as
Montana's wheat farmers and Beijing's political and military
officials.
"Senators represent states, not congressional
districts,"
Baucus said in an interview. "They generally have a wider array
of interests to consider.... Every state has considerable farm
interests. Most House Democrats don't."
Baucus
noted that another major contrast between the
House and the Senate is that
Senators "tend to travel more ...
and take a broader national interest."
After all, the Senate has
a unique role in confirming presidential nominees
and ratifying
international treaties. And because Senators serve six-year
terms, they have greater opportunity to focus on international
issues
that typically produce little support at the ballot box.
"House members are closer to their constituents and are
acutely
concerned about jobs, especially at the 'micro' level,"
said one disgruntled
labor leader. "Senators think of themselves
as enlightened globalists. But
they tend to think more along the
lines of how the companies tell them to
think."
In May, the House approved the China
PNTR legislation by
a 237-197 vote, with only about
one-third (73) of the 211
Democrats in favor. U.S. Trade Representative
Charlene Barshefsky
said in an interview that Gephardt's position greatly
influenced
House Democrats. His views on trade policy "take on added weight
because he's the leader of the (House Democratic) Caucus," she
said.
"Members hold him in very high regard." But in the Senate,
well-placed
Democratic sources expected at least two-thirds of
their group-between 30
and 40 of the 46 Democratic Senators-to
back the legislation in the final
vote.
A final Senate vote was delayed for months
because of
Republican squabbling over how to handle an amendment pushed by
Sens. Fred D. Thompson, R-Tenn., and Robert G. Torricelli, D-
N.J., to
discourage Chinese weapons proliferation by
strengthening international
sanctions. PNTR supporters objected
to adding any Senate
amendments to the House-passed China trade
legislation because that would
mean a revote in the House. On
Sept. 13, the Senate voted 65-32 to table the
Thompson-Torricelli
amendment, clearing the way for final passage of the
bill soon
thereafter.
Because Senate Democratic
support for PNTR appeared
strong this week, some
Republicans took the opportunity to
resurrect their contention that labor
calls the shots for House
Democrats. "The House Democratic leadership is
much more extreme
and locked into the views of (AFL-CIO head) John Sweeney,"
said
House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif., a leading
advocate of expanded trade. "House members often don't see the
forest
for the trees. Senators are able to sit back and think
big."
A House Republican leadership source-although dubious
that the
trade issue will give Republicans much of an election
boost-said that the
House-Senate contrast on PNTR reveals that
Gephardt's
dealings with labor are "cynical."
Gephardt and his
aides have firmly rejected any link
between their legislative and
fund-raising strategies, and labor
official Taylor agreed. She said the main
political element in
the China debate was the House Democrats' fear of "a
low grass-
roots turnout" in the election, as resulted in 1994 following
congressional approval of the North American Free Trade
Agreement.
"Senators don't think about this as much," Taylor
said. "They run more on
television than do House members."
In the 1993 vote
on NAFTA, 156 of the 258 House Democrats
opposed the legislation. Their
party took a significant political
hit in 1994 because it controlled the
House majority and its
leaders had scheduled the vote. In the Senate,
Democrats divided
nearly evenly on NAFTA-27 for, 28 against.
On PNTR, the Senate debated and voted on
procedural
aspects during the last week in July and held a full-blown debate
on the bill over the past two weeks without much news media
coverage. A
handful of Senators from both parties led the
opposition, including several
from textile-producing states, such
as Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and others
from the Right and Left
who have objected to China's human rights record,
including Sens.
Bob Smith, R-N.H., and Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., both of whom
made
abortive presidential bids in the past year.
Even longtime critics of U.S. trade policy, such as Sen.
Byron Dorgan,
D-N.D., mostly held their fire. Dorgan said he
would vote for the
legislation, which drops what had been an
annual legislative review of
Chinese human rights behavior. "Our
trade policy with China is completely
out of whack," he said.
"But this issue is different: Shall we make
permanent what we
have done annually?"
Democrats
on both sides of Capitol Hill who support PNTR
for China
make the case that the showdown over the issue has been
helpful in leading
their party to a new way of thinking about
trade. "We are in the difficult
process of changing international
trade," said Rep. Sander M. Levin,
D-Mich., who would be in line
to chair the House Ways and Means Trade
Subcommittee if Democrats
win House control. "The Senate vote is not a stamp
of approval
for the status quo. This will be a step toward changing trade
policy to meet new challenges."
Levin was the
chief author of a painstakingly assembled
amendment to the China
PNTR legislation, designed to ensure that
future trade
deals will recognize labor and environmental
concerns. Baucus, who is in
line for the senior Democratic post
on the Senate Finance Committee with
this year's retirement of
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, has
worked with Levin
and others on these issues and embraces the need to
strengthen
the multilateral approach to trade.
Among other things, Baucus agrees with Rep. Charles B.
Rangel of New
York, the senior Democrat on the Ways and Means
Committee, on the need to
revoke the trade embargo of Cuba. "We
need to get out of the Cold War,"
Baucus said.
Although another debate next year over
trade is surely a
low priority for divided Democrats, they may not have a
choice.
George W. Bush has said he would press for early action on
legislation to give the President fast-track trade-negotiating
authority, which Clinton sought unsuccessfully. Al Gore has not
directly
addressed the fast-track issue and clearly would focus
greater attention on
other parts of his legislative agenda, but
he probably would be forced to
address it sometime in the next
four years. Clearly, whichever party
controls the House and
Senate will have a major impact on how all Democrats
deal with
trade issues after November.
LOAD-DATE:
September 19, 2000 
