[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Battle Lines ...
- To: tw-list@essential.org, walswor452@aol.com, carolyn@idcomm.com, cgarlock@essential.org, 71112.110@compuserve.com, hartwood@gvi.net, croper@cleanwater.org, dan.seligman@sfsierra.sierraclub.org, witness@w4peace.org, dawnlarson@aol.com, leaver@swcp.com, frs@netva.com, 76573.2076@compuserve.com, afscole@aol.com, jharring@falcon.cc.ukans.edu, irc1@zianet.com, heed@igc.apc.org, itterry@juno.com, agitprop@worldnet.att.net, james_scott@greenbuilder.com, jlivingston@igc.apc.org, janeb@earthlink.net, evansjanice@msn.com, wafcjj@igc.org, jcostigan1@compuserve.com, jhans@msn.com, calaborfed@igc.org, ancelj@smtpgate.umkc.edu, rctamn@maroon.tc.umn.edu, vision@igc.apc.org, kids@cybertours.com, williamslm@aol.com, iatp@iatp.org, clouse@rafiusa.org, mwmorrill@aol.com, pdradfor@juno.com, wicastf@execpc.com, massaflcio@aol.com, sissmith@prodigy.net, sjwtenn@aol.com, siliconv@bena.com, v_turner@conknet.com, vmenotti@igc.apc.org, cwiggins@proj.org, jsmillie@worc.org
- Subject: Battle Lines ...
- From: MDOLAN <mdolan@citizen.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 15:41:00 -0500
- Organization: Public Citizen
- Sender: MDOLAN <mdolan@citizen.org>
>
> Battle Lines Forming Over Clinton's Bid for
> `Fast-Track' Trade Powers
>
> By Ann Devroy
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Sunday, August 31, 1997; Page A15
> The Washington Post
>
> It has all the trappings of a Big Washington
> Issue: a White House war room staffed by
> special outside lobbyists, coalitions on both
> sides prepared to raise and spend millions,
> full-page newspaper ads appearing even though
> no legislation has yet been introduced. And a
> country that knows little if anything about a
> subject that walks, talks and smells like
> Inside the Beltway.
>
> The issue is free trade, specifically the
> extent of President Clinton's power to
> negotiate trade deals with other countries. The
> White House plus some in Congress expect it to
> be a dominant part of the fall's political
> debate, beginning soon after the House and
> Senate return to work this week.
>
> On Sept. 10, the White House plans to send
> Congress its request for authority to negotiate
> trade agreements on a "fast-track" basis. That
> essentially means Congress cannot amend such
> pacts, only vote them up or down as presented
> by the White House.
>
> This is a dispute with strong, committed sides.
> The White House and business groups are
> prepared to use substantial amounts of
> Clinton's clout and time to win back the
> authority that George Bush lost. Until that
> defeat, no U.S. president had faced his trading
> partners without fast-track authority.
>
> The job won't be easy. "The political climate
> for new trade agreements is not good," the
> Business Roundtable wrote to its members last
> month. "Organized labor, human-rights groups,
> protectionists, isolationists and
> environmentalists are questioning the benefit
> of trade."
>
> On the other side, unions have made opposition
> to fast-track authority a key battleground.
> They generally believe such loose and easy
> negotiating authority by the White House will
> result in more free trade deals that will move
> jobs out of the United States, and will do
> nothing to enhance the rights and wages of
> international workers who produce goods for
> export to the United States. They have been
> joined by some conservatives who favor
> protectionist policies, such as former
> presidential candidates Ross Perot and Patrick
> J. Buchanan.
>
> Complicating matters are the political
> realities of trade, which highlight fissures in
> both parties. As with NAFTA, a Democratic
> president again has to cajole mostly Democrats
> for votes because it is they who represent the
> union workers and many of the border
> communities fearful of losing their plants
> under fast-track treaties. Added to the stew is
> the opposition of Democratic Minority Leader
> Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.). Trade has become a
> defining issue between him and Vice President
> Gore, whom he may oppose in the 2000 Democratic
> presidential primaries.
>
> In deciding his legislative strategy, Clinton
> is considering whether to draft a bill that
> would allow him to include labor and
> environmental provisions in any treaty he
> negotiates. This approach, advocated by
> Gephardt, might neutralize criticism among
> Democrats.
>
> The first and perhaps toughest battle is likely
> to come in the House, which has taken the lead
> on trade legislation in recent years. While
> Clinton should win the majority of House
> Republicans, the White House expects to lose
> enough GOP protectionists that the president
> will need to secure at least 70 Democrats. Only
> three dozen are considered "reliable" pro-fast
> track votes today, giving the president a steep
> hill to climb.
>
> A bitterly divided House approved NAFTA by a
> 234 to 200 vote in 1993, but that is an
> imprecise yardstick because the chamber has
> changed dramatically since then, both in
> party-line control and the substantial turnover
> of members.
>
> The Senate could be more sympathetic. While
> presenting its own unique challenges because of
> concerns over senatorial prerogatives in treaty
> ratification, the Senate has exhibited more
> philosophical support for free trade.
>
> Clinton wants to win passage for fast-track
> authority before Congress adjourns for the year
> so he can avoid having to wage a divisive fight
> in a congressional election year and so that he
> can have that authority in hand when he travels
> to Santiago, Chile, next spring for the Summit
> of the Americas, which will deal with a broad
> range of regional issues, including trade.
> Democratic strategists hope to secure at least
> House approval before Clinton leaves for a tour
> of South America in mid-October.
>
> With that timetable in mind, the White House
> and its allies will roll out a vigorous
> lobbying campaign this week even before Clinton
> returns from his Martha's Vineyard vacation.
>
> Starting Wednesday, the administration will
> blitz Congress with top officials, sending
> Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, Commerce
> Secretary William Daley, Agriculture Secretary
> Dan Glickman, U.S. Trade Representative
> Charlene Barshefsky and a team of White House
> lobbyists to Capitol Hill to press Clinton's
> case. During the six days before the formal
> unveiling of the legislation, the Clinton team
> plans to meet with 75 to 100 members on both
> sides of the Hill.
>
> It won't just be the White House doing the
> lobbying. A business coalition, America Leads
> on Trade, already boasts 350 members and is
> well on its way to raising the $3 million it
> says it will need to put on an effective media
> campaign. By most accounts, fewer than 50 House
> members could decide the issue, so both sides
> are planning to target their money in undecided
> districts, not nationwide. The White House will
> focus Clinton's energy on members from those
> districts.
>
> The point the White House and its allies are
> trying to make, in simplified form, is that
> further American economic growth depends on its
> trading relationships. "Without new fast-track
> authority, America's global trade leadership
> will be irreparably harmed," the Business
> Roundtable notes in a July 24 letter to its
> members, who are CEOs of some of the country's
> biggest companies.
>
> The Roundable, which is taking the business
> lead for the moment (the Chamber of Commerce is
> expected to be active after Labor Day) sent its
> members a proposed strategy that calls for
> close cooperation with the White House. In
> addition to television ads in targeted
> congressional districts, the business group
> calls for "aggressive use of earned media,
> leveraging administration activity as much as
> possible."
>
> There will be a toll-free phone number to
> generate congressional calls from company
> employees, suppliers and constituents, and CEOs
> will be asked to lobby members of Congress.
>
> David Smith, director of public policy for the
> AFL-CIO, said the unions will engage in a "very
> big effort. We see this as the most important
> signal of the direction of American labor. We
> understand and the White House understands that
> this is going to be very tough."
>
> Perot and his followers have said they will run
> a campaign similar to the one they mounted
> against NAFTA. Pat Choate, Perot's running mate
> in 1992, contends that the last two big trade
> deals, NAFTA and the General Agreement on
> Tariffs and Trade (GATT), have both been
> disastrous for the United States.
>
> "Any treaty that cannot be done through normal
> procedures should not be done," Choate said.
> "There should not be shortcuts."
>
> Staff writer Peter Baker contributed to this
> report.
>
... Battle Stations
****************************************************************************
/s/ Mike Dolan, Field Director, Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen
Join the Global Trade Watch list server. We will keep you up to date on
trade policy and politics. To subscribe, send this message: "SUBSCRIBE
TW-LIST" [followed by your name, your organizational affiliation and the
state in which you live] to LISTPROC@ESSENTIAL.ORG
Then check out our web-site ---> www.citizen.org/pctrade
WE EDUCATE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO ORGANIZE THEM.
WE DON'T ORGANIZE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO EDUCATE THEM.
Fred Ross, Sr.