SUNS 4288 Friday 25 September 1998


UNITED STATES: BIG BUSINESS PUSH FOR FAST-TRACK SHOWDOWN

Washington, Sep 23 (IPS/Jim Lobe) -- U.S. business and agricultural interests are pushing for Congressional passage this week of a "fast-track" trade bill to give President Bill Clinton authority to
negotiate new trade agreements with Latin America and other emerging markets.

Clinton, who made fast track one of his top priorities last year, however opposes a vote on the issue at this time. He fears that it will embarrass fellow-Democrats who are badly split on trade policy and
already are worried about the impact of the Monica Lewinsky scandal on their election prospects in November. Business lobbyists charge that the White House is pressing Democrats behind the scenes to oppose the bill.

"(Clinton's chief of staff) Erskine Bowles is burning up the phone lines, saying, 'if this thing passes, we're screwed in the elections'," said one. Even some Republicans are concerned about the vote and the possible aggravation of a growing split between the party's pro-business and populist wings.

The intra-Republican split is one of the major reasons why the U.S. corporate sector, led by the powerful 'Business Roundtable,' an elite group of chief executive officers (CEOs) of the country's largest corporations, is pushing the fast-track bill, according to Capitol Hill sources.

"Business has become more and more unhappy with the Republicans' performance over the last two years," says one aide who works for a Republican lawmaker. "They think that the (Republican) leadership is being taken over by the Christian Right which has been pursuing its own agenda, and they want to find out where these guys stand before they commit money to their (election) campaigns."

Big agricultural interests, which have been hit hard by low grain prices and financially troubled export markets, are also exerting strong pressure on farm-state lawmakers, many of whom opposed
fast-track last year, to support the measure.

A vote in the House of Representatives is currently scheduled for Friday or Saturday and few observers on either side are confident of the outcome. "We still face an uphill climb," says Johanna Schneider, Roundtable lobbyist.

"It will be very close," according to a spokeswoman at Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, a consumer group which helped lead the anti-fast-track campaign last year.

Fast-track authority, which Congress approved regularly between 1974 and 1990, expired after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect in 1994. Clinton, who made trade a top priority during his first term, lobbied hard for its renewal in 1997 but failed when a strong majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives, under pressure from labour and environmental groups, opposed it.

Faced with its likely defeat, Clinton withdrew the measure last November while vowing to try again this year. But with Democrats still badly split, he quietly shelved the matter, arguing that the spreading Asian financial crisis, and the need for adequate funding for the IMF to cope with it, rated higher priority.

Backed by the Business Roundtable and other corporate lobby groups, the administration is pressing Congress to approve $18 billion for the IMF before it adjourns for the year Oct 9.

The two measures have created an interesting and unusual conundrum. Both the IMF and fast-track authority, which Clinton intends to use to expand trade and investment opportunities for U.S. businesses abroad, are seen as pillars of the "globalisation" process hailed by transnational companies and banks. The two major parties, therefore, should take consistent positions.

Yet a strong majority of Democrats, traditionally more sceptical of the benefits of global capital, supports the IMF contribution and opposes fast track.

Conversely, most Republicans back fast track, while opposition to granting the IMF the full $18 billion requested by Clinton is strongest among House Republicans.

"It doesn't make a whole lot of sense," says one observer, but sees this apparent paradox is symptomatic of the blurred ideological lines within, and between the two parties, since the end of the Cold War.

The key battleground for both measures is the House, which last week voted to delete all but $3.4 billion from Clinton's IMF request and is now scheduled to vote on fast track this weekend. In the Senate, where a majority of both parties are more responsive to big business, strong support exists for both initiatives.

In many ways, the battle is coming down to one of money. Big business generally contributes about seven or eight times the money provided by labour unions, and sharply increased its allocation to Republicans after they gained control of the House in 1994. But corporate CEOs have been dismayed by the returns on their investment, complaining bitterly that the Republican leadership has been more beholden to the Christian and populist right's agenda on such issues as economic sanctions against foreign governments, curbs on immigration and affirmative action, China, the IMF and taxes than to big business.

For them, the fast-track vote is being posed as a kind of litmus test of Republican responsiveness to corporate interests, and they think they are making headway.

Bill Morley, chief lobbyist for the Chamber of Commerce, told IPS he thought about three-quarters of Republicans will vote for fast track, substantially more than were prepared to do so last year. The strong involvement in the effort by the agribusiness also has made a big difference this year, as many farm-state lawmakers are under enormous pressure to support both fast track and the IMF.

The Democratic side's intentions are more obscure - due in part to the White House's behind-the-scenes efforts to kill the bill. Three key Democratic supporters of fast track announced last week that they will oppose the effort for a vote before Congress ends its current session. "Should (fast track) fail on the floor of the House, it will send further shock waves to already fragile world markets," they warned House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "Further it would become more difficult to
pass a fast track bill early next year."

Democrats traditionally have been more responsive to the interests of labour, whose own campaign resources are likely to be play a significant role in this year's elections. "Democrats can't afford to
alienate labour this year," says one business lobbyist, who insists that farm-state Democrats are likely to decide the outcome.