The U.S. House of Representatives Thursday approved a major victory for President Bush with a narrow vote granting him trade promotion authority, or “fast-track authority.”
The House voted 215-214 in favor of granting Bush fast-track authority.
Fast-track authority gives Bush the power to quickly pass trade agreements with approval from Congress. Congress can only accept or reject the bill; no amendments can be made, therefore giving the president greater power than Congress.
The Senate must approve the measure before Bush is granted the new authority.
Proponents of fast-track authority claim the president needs fast track in order to quickly pass trade agreements. Without it, they say, there would be an endless cycle of amendments and disagreements within Congress.
Fast-track authority expired in 1994, and, because of disagreements between Republicans and Democrats, was never reimplemented.
Clinton attempted to regain fast-track authority throughout his administration but never succeeded.
“That’s something that Clinton wanted and couldn’t get, and so it’s interesting that Bush or a Republican was able to get it,” UW political science professor Charles Franklin said.
Several factors contributed to Congress’ failure to grant Clinton’s request.
“With Clinton it was a combination of Democrats who were pro-labor and who oppose these free-trade agreements, and there were Republicans who didn’t want to grant it either, because they were protectionist or didn’t want to grant that much power to a Democrat,” Franklin said.
Economic matters play into most political decisions, and the House’s decision to grant fast track is not an exception.
Trade implications impact the economy, and advocates of free-trade agreements claim they would help the slumping economy.
“The free traders are convinced it will help the economy; protectionists are worried about American jobs being shipped elsewhere,” Franklin said.
Concerns also exist with the actual agreements Bush might make. U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., said previous fast-track use has resulted in agreements lacking the protection of human or workers’ rights.
“The role trade agreements play is an important issue that has appropriately emerged as a national and international debate,” Baldwin said in a statement. “The terms on which we conduct international trade are vital to answering some of the most fundamental questions about what our nation and the world will be like in the next century. I strongly believe that human rights, environmental protection and workers’ rights must be included as part of any trade negotiations and agreements.”
During the Clinton administration, free trade was an important issue; Bush’s administration is less clear about its views on free-trade policies.
“We don’t know very much about what Bush’s views are on free trade,” Franklin said. “The Bush administration hasn’t established a clear viewpoint. It’s still up in the air.”
