Democrats Call House Defeat of Fast-Track Trade Bill Bid to Humiliate Them

The House on Friday defeated a bill to expand the president’s power to negotiate trade deals with other nations, a vote White House officials and Democrats complained was scheduled as an exercise in political embarrassment for them.

The GOP’s House leadership pushed for the vote on granting the president so-called “fast track” authority despite widespread predictions it was destined to lose. The Republican leaders argued that the bill would help U.S. farmers, who have seen prices for their products plummet as the effects of the Asian economic crisis have broadened. Business groups also strongly back the legislation.

But with organized labor fiercely opposing the bill, most House Democrats have been lined up against it since Congress first debated this issue last year. And the GOP’s real agenda Friday was to highlight the Democratic opposition as the Nov. 3 election looms, Democratic leaders charged.

“There is no chance to pass it today,” griped Rep. Martin Frost of Texas, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, shortly before the vote. “We should not sacrifice long-term bipartisan cooperation on fast track for short-term political gain.”

The bill lost, 243 to 180, with 171 Democrats, 71 Republicans and one independent voting against it.

In pronounced contrast to last year, when the White House tried in vain to spearhead passage of the expanded trade powers, administration officials were hostile to Friday’s vote because of its political ramifications.

“This is a terrible time for [House Republican leaders] to be bringing it up, in a pre-election environment,” said White House spokesman Barry Toiv.

During Friday’s House debate, Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-San Diego) said he was “sickened” by the Democratic attacks against the GOP for pressing what he maintained was a legitimate issue. “This is the most important vote that we can cast for our farmers and our ranchers and our small business, yet [some] can only say that the Republicans are doing this to embarrass the president,” he said. “I came here today to listen and I am appalled.”

Nonetheless, some Republicans made clear that the vote’s outcome could be spotlighted in upcoming congressional elections, particularly in Democratic regions with farmers, ranchers and others who may view their livelihoods as increasingly linked to exports and unfettered global commerce.

Mary Crawford, spokeswoman for the National Republican Campaign Committee, said, “If you represent that kind of district, I would expect that voters will ask the question: ‘Whose interests are you representing--ours or the Washington labor union bosses’?’ ”

Some of the Republicans who voted against the bill represent districts with significant numbers of union members, while others favor protectionist trade policies.

Under fast-track authority, Congress would be able to reject or ratify trade deals negotiated by a president, but it would not be able to amend them. Past presidents have enjoyed such authority, which expired in 1994. The Clinton administration has previously argued it needs such authority to move forward with a range of global talks involving agriculture, technology and other trade matters.

To critics, the fast-track measure symbolizes much that is wrong with the global economy, including the flight of U.S. manufacturing jobs to less-developed nations where standards for labor and the environment are far less stringent than those in this country.

John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, told a Washington rally earlier this week: “Do we want to allow trade agreements that don’t keep our food and our water safe? Trade agreements that protect corporations but neglect workers? . . . Our answer is no!”

During debate on the bill last November, the administration worked closely with the GOP House leadership, which ultimately pulled the measure from the floor to avoid an expected defeat. The White House hoped to avoid revisiting the issue until next year, when legislators no longer would be subject to the heightened election-year pressures surrounding the bill.