Bush urges pact on free trade

President Bush yesterday sent Congress a free-trade pact with Colombia, forcing the issue onto the public stage at a time when free trade is unpopular with voters, concerned over the slumping economy.

Congress must vote within 90 legislative days, which is expected to end in late September, forcing supporters of the pact to take a difficult stand just weeks before the November elections. The White House said Mr. Bush wanted the pact ratified while he is still president.

Democratic leaders quickly denounced the pact yesterday, following the lead of the two Democratic presidential candidates, who have been arguing on the campaign trail over which of them is more opposed to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Opposition to the Colombia deal, which was signed in November 2006, is so deep among Democrats that strategist Mark J. Penn had to leave the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday because his lobbying firm was pushing the deal. Polls show that trade in general, and bilateral free-trade agreements in particular, are blamed for the economy’s decline, particularly among blue-collar Democrats.

Exit polls in the March 4 primaries in Texas and Ohio revealed overwhelming opposition to NAFTA, portrayed by presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton as a job killer. Both called for a “time out” on trade agreements and said they would renegotiate NAFTA. In Ohio, 81 percent said NAFTA caused that state’s job losses. In Texas, a major exporting state, 59 percent said it had cost their economy jobs, too.

Opposition to trade is “pervasive and crosses party lines,” said economist Robert E. Litan, senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

Democratic campaign strategists predicted yesterday that trade will be a winning issue for them in the general election in a number of Republican red states.

“Trade is unquestionably a higher priority now, not just for Democratic primary voters, but for swing voters in most areas of the country. The economic stress many voters are feeling has led them to conclude that even the possibility of a job being shipped abroad is a very real threat,” said campaign adviser Alan Secrest.

In announcing his decision yesterday, Mr. Bush said the proposed trade pact would advance U.S. security interests in a “critical region” of the world.

“It will strengthen a courageous ally in our hemisphere,” he said. “It will help America’s economy and America’s workers at a vital time.”

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said Mr. Bush sent the Colombia trade legislation “under circumstances that maximize the chances it will fail.” It was the first time a president has used so-called “fast-track” authority to force a congressional vote over the objections of the party controlling Congress.

Mr. Reid said Democrats are concerned that the agreement “creates the highest level of economic integration with a country where workers and their families are routinely murdered and subjected to violence and intimidation for seeking to exercise their most basic economic rights.” Mr. Reid acknowledged Colombian progress on domestic matters but said the level of violence against trade unionists there “is still the worst in the world.”

Labor unions also criticized Mr. Bush’s move. AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney said it “shows an outrageous disregard for basic human and workers rights.”

“Our government should not reward the Colombian government for such callous indifference to the rights and lives of Colombian workers,” Mr. Sweeney said.

Yet some economists and political analysts question whether the trade issue is as potent an issue as its Democratic detractors think.

“I don’t think the politics of trade has changed. If you look back at the last two Democratic presidential nominees, John Kerry and Al Gore, they both ran against free trade and lost,” said Kevin A. Hassett, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute.

“I don’t think it will work. The fact is that anti-trade rhetoric used by both Clinton and Obama is inconsistent with the views of most professional economists,” Mr. Hassett said.

“Most Americans gain from trade. Their employers sell more because of exports which are up a lot. Their houses are filled with consumer goods from other nations, like Sony television sets,” he said.

Capitol Hill Republicans said the trade pact would correct an imbalance that allows Colombian goods duty-free access to the U.S. while American exports remain subject to tariffs.

“Remarkably, it’s an arrangement that persists entirely of this Congress’ choosing, and it’s one I hope we can finally end by entering into a long-term relationship with one of our most important allies in South America,” said House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said the trade agreement would encourage the Colombian government to work toward reducing violence against labor leaders and to open its labor practices to international scrutiny.

“There’s no good reason for continued delay on this trade agreement,” Mr. Grassley said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce praised Mr. Bush’s proposal.

“The facts clearly call for approval of this ’fair trade’ agreement, both from an economic and a foreign-policy perspective,” chamber President Tom Donohue said.

Conservative policy strategists, however, worry that Republican lawmakers do not seem to be able to make a convincing economic growth case for free trade and fear that they will lose the battle on Capitol Hill.

“You have to link it to job creation, growth and that consumer dollars will go further, but these guys are having a difficult time making the case for it,” said Michael Franc, vice president for governmental affairs at the Heritage Foundation.

“Trade is an issue with the greatest diversion between economic reality and public perception than any other issue I can think of,” said Pat Toomey, president of the Club for Growth. “The Republicans need to have the courage to stand up and make the arguments for it.”