House Supports Trading Powers Sought by Bush

By JOSEPH KAHN

ASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — The House today passed legislation that gives the Bush administration a stronger hand to negotiate trade agreements, awarding a hairbreadth wartime victory to President Bush that the same chamber twice denied the Clinton administration.

Bush administration officials and Republican leaders squeezed their party ranks, relying on several longtime trade-wary lawmakers, one late vote switch, and the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, who often does not vote, to eke out the 215-214 victory.

Just before the vote, Mr. Hastert made an impassioned appeal on the House floor "not to undercut our president at the worst possible time," a plea that several lawmakers later said persuaded them to defy influential interests in their home districts to back Mr. Bush.

The bill was seen as an important test of Mr. Bush's political strength. He lobbied for it right up until the final vote, arguing that he needed it both on substantive grounds and to demonstrate American solidarity to foreign leaders. He passed the test, but just barely.

If the bill is passed by the Senate, where support for trade is considered firmer, Mr. Bush will have so- called trade promotion authority, allowing him to reach foreign trade agreements that Congress can accept or reject, but not amend.

Administration officials argue that the new authority will help them negotiate global and regional accords to free trade in agriculture, manufactured goods and services. Without that power, they say, other countries might prefer to leave the United States out of trade agreements rather than see them subjected to Congressional tinkering.

"Trade Promotion Authority will give me the flexibility I need to secure the greatest possible trade opportunities for America's farmers, workers, families and consumers," Mr. Bush said after the vote. The president had spent much of the last three days lobbying House members in the White House and on Air Force One.

The United States has not reached any major multinational trade agreements since the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization were created more than seven years ago, when the president had what was then called fast-track authority.

Congress denied President Bill Clinton enhanced negotiating authority twice in the late 1990's, though Mr. Clinton was able to negotiate commercial agreements with China, Vietnam, Jordan and other nations that Congress ultimately approved.

Robert B. Zoellick, the United States Trade Representative, has worked all year to pressure Republican leaders and some reluctant administration officials to hold the vote, which many predicted would fail. Mr. Zoellick said the added authority would make it far easier to achieve the administration's two top trade priorities: broadening Nafta to include Central and South America and completing global trade talks that were started in Doha, Qatar, last month.

"The president has tried to restore momentum for trade," Mr. Zoellick said, "and this House has now given us the authority to do that."

Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the measure, as many generally pro-trade Democrats voted no. Many complained that the bill failed to mandate that trade agreements set labor and environmental standards as well as tariff and quota levels, a demand that reflects staunch opposition to traditional trade liberalization by unions and some environmental groups.

But Republicans managed to peel off enough Democratic support — a total of 21 votes — to make up for defections among their own party members. One factor was an eleventh-hour promise by House leaders to spend at least $20 billion to help the unemployed, many times what they had agreed to devote to post- Sept. 11 welfare assistance as recently as last week.

"It is an abomination that they would be bringing up all of these ideas for worker relief, as inadequate and poor as they are, in order to buy votes," said the House Democratic leader, Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri.

Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, who led opposition to the bill and helped draft a Democratic alternative, said the Republican victory was Pyrrhic. Republicans, he said, failed to address deep-seated concerns about the direction of trade policy, potentially reducing chances of passing any trade agreements reached under the new authority.

"It's clear that Republican leadership was willing to offer other things that had nothing to do with the bill since they would not offer solid trade policy," Mr. Rangel said.

Multinational companies, including many high-tech firms, strongly supported trade authority, as did most major farm groups. Export- oriented industries expect that new trade agreements will make it easier to sell or produce goods in foreign markets. Some also hope that reciprocal tariff cuts by the United States will reduce import prices and help their bottom line.

A few major business lobbies called this the most important vote of the year. The Information Technology Industry Council, a lobbying group, told lawmakers that it would count their vote on trade authority twice when tallying how supportive they were to the high-tech cause — potentially costing those who voted against the measure a lucrative source of campaign contributions.

But some Republican and Democratic lawmakers face pockets of intense opposition to trade accords in their home districts. Unionized workers and businesses that have been harmed by imports, including citrus, textile and steel producers, have mobilized against them. Many especially oppose giving the president open- ended authority to negotiate trade deals as he sees fit.

To overcome such resistance among Republicans, Mr. Bush and Republican leaders twisted arms through the final gavel.

The administration put especially heavy pressure on several North Carolina and South Carolina Republicans. Representatives from those states often vote no on trade agreements because of strong textile interests at home. But their districts are also full of conservatives eager to support the president during a war.

Mr. Bush invited Cass Ballenger of North Carolina to dinner at the White House Wednesday night. Mr. Zoellick spent much of the afternoon talking to Robin Hayes of North Carolina. The two still professed that they would vote against the measure even as the floor debate began this afternoon.

But Mr. Ballenger hovered with party leaders in the well of the House chamber until the final moments, prepared to vote yes if Republicans needed his support to avoid defeat. They did, and he did.

"I felt it was my duty to support the president," Mr. Ballenger said afterward. "But I'll tell you it was not the smartest vote I've made in my life." Mr. Hayes also voted yes to help close the gap.

Even with those late recruits, Republicans were still at least a vote shy. With the time allotted for voting expired and Democrats shouting across the aisle to bring down the gavel, Mr. Hastert and other Republican leaders repeatedly circled Adam Putnam of Florida, urging the 27-year-old freshman to tow the party line. He ultimately voted no.

Asked how he felt afterward about choosing between the demands of citrus farmers and pressure from the president, Mr. Putnam said, "It made me want to throw up."

Ultimately the man who saved the day for Republicans was Jim DeMint of South Carolina. He first voted no, as he often has on trade issues. But with the tally at 214-214, he handed over a green card signaling that he would switch to yes. House leaders promptly declared the vote complete