July 28, 2002	Sunday	Jamadi-ul-Awwal 17,1423

WASHINGTON, July 27: The US House of Representatives voted early on Saturday to give President George W. Bush the power to negotiate broad new trade agreements, moving one step closer to restoring the power to the White House for the first time in eight years.

The House narrowly approved the “trade promotion authority” bill by a vote of 215-212, with only 25 Democrats voting in favour. The margin of victory was only slightly larger than a 215-214 vote last December on an earlier version of the bill.

The mostly party line vote followed a Capitol Hill visit by Bush late on Friday to shore up Republican support.

The trade bill “is very important for jobs and workers, very important for our farmers and ranchers, and it’s very important for our economy,” Bush said.

Bush has pushed for the legislation since taking office 18 months ago and his administration’s pressure in recent weeks proved crucial. The House approved the bill as its last act before a month-long August recess.

While lawmakers responded to the administration’s pressure by mustering enough votes for the trade bill, eleventh-hour efforts to pass an overhaul of bankruptcy rules did not receive such strident support from Bush and failed to beat the recess deadline.

The Senate, which has a a few more days than the House to vote on legislation, is expected to take up the trade bill next week and send it to Bush to sign into law.

The package is key to the White House’s ambitious trade agenda to expand overseas markets for US goods and services.

That includes the completion of new world trade pacts and a Western Hemisphere free-trade zone by January 2005, as well as bilateral and regional agreements with Chile, Singapore and countries in Central America and Africa.

House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas, a California Republican, said the bill he helped craft would put the United States back in the fight for increased exports.

Without trade promotion authority, “the President does not have the tool to begin negotiations with other countries. That’s like beginning a boxing match with one hand tied behind your back,” Thomas said.

But Rep. Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said the bill was “fatally flawed.”

Levin complained that negotiating objectives covering labour and environmental issues in future trade pacts were not tough enough. He also charged that the compromise trade package, which House and Senate negotiators put together late Thursday, would put US anti-dumping protections against unfair imports “on the chopping block” in world trade talks.

The trade promotion authority bill would allow Bush to bring home trade agreements that Congress could approve or reject, but not amend. Supporters say without the authority other countries would not negotiate seriously with the United States because Congress could change any deal.

The White House has not had the authority — also known as “fast track” trade legislation — since 1994, mainly because of Democratic party concerns over the impact of trade agreements on workers and the environment.

Another section of the wide-ranging trade bill would allow Colombia and other Andean nations to sell more of their goods in the US market without paying import duties.

Congress passed the Andean Trade Preferences Act in 1991 to help the region curb illegal cocaine production, but let the legislation expire last year. The expansion provides increased market access for tuna sold in pouches and for Andean apparel made with US and regional fabric.

Caribbean and African apparel products made with US and regional fabric would also get more market access

Rep. Charlie Norwood, a Georgia Republican, called the apparel provisions “the final nail in the coffin of the textile industry of America” because of potential job losses.

The bill also nearly triples funding for federal programmes to help retrain workers who have lost their job because of increased imports or overseas factory relocations.

Rep. Robert Matsui, a California Democrat, complained the “trade adjustment assistance” provisions were not as strong as in an earlier Senate version of the bill.

Most workers who lose their jobs because of factories moving offshore won’t be covered, he said.—Reuters