The votes just keep comin' on whether Congress should grant George Bush "Fast Track" trade negotiating authority.

The president says Fast Track is necessary before he can negotiate the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) expanding NAFTA throughout the Western Hemisphere. After surviving months of political maneuvering, tense negotiations and a 215-214 vote, Fast Track will get a final thumbs-up or thumbs-down this summer.

Last December, the U.S. House passed Fast Track -- which takes away Congress' authority to amend trade agreements and forces simple yea-or-nay votes on these complex pacts -- by just one vote. Last month, the Senate passed a different version of the bill that included some provisions designed to assist workers who will lose their jobs as expansion of so-called "free trade" entices more U.S. companies to close plants and move production overseas.

Now, a House-Senate conference committee must iron out differences between the two bills and send the "compromise" bill back to both houses for a final vote. Yesterday, House Republicans scrapped a plan to begin debate on passage of their version a second time to strengthen their hand in compromise talks with the Senate. They want to nix some of the Senate's dislocated worker assistance.

It will be the eventual House vote on the conference compromise that determines whether our country takes the Fast Track to FTAA, an expansion of the NAFTA that has cost hundreds of thousands of U.S. workers their jobs and suppressed the wages of an untold number who managed to keep theirs. (Visit the AFL-CIO's website for more extensive background on NAFTA, FTAA and Fast Track.)

The one debate that ignores public opinion

So once again, the corporate lobbyists and their editorial-page champions will trot out intelligence-insulting "trade is good, no trade is bad" arguments implying Fast Track opponents are anti-trade. Once again, they will cynically suggest opposition comes only from organized labor and environmental groups, and say anyone in Congress who votes "no" is merely placating those constituency groups.

It's much easier to make Big Labor Bosses and Tree-Hugging Liberals out to be the problem than it is to admit the truth: AMERICANS DON'T WANT FAST TRACK, and members of Congress who oppose it are representing the thoughts and wishes of the clear majority of voters.

A national poll taken right before the last House vote showed very similar results to polls taken when Fast Track was twice defeated during President Clinton's term:

By a 47 to 33 percent margin, voters believe that Congress should use normal legislative procedures, not Fast Track, to consider trade agreements. This margin rises to 54-26 percent when respondents are reminded that Fast Track gave us NAFTA and the last WTO agreement.

By 61-23 percent, voters reject the view that without fast track, other countries won't negotiate with a market as big as the United States.

By 59-18 percent, voters believe that concrete goals, like boosting American employment and incomes, should be the top priority of U.S. trade policy, not abstractions like "strengthening U.S. leadership in the global economy."

By 66-14 percent, voters believe that new trade agreements should include "strong guarantees of worker rights and environmental protections" -- unlike the Fast Track bill now under consideration.

And by 70-16 percent, they favor "limiting imports if they threaten American jobs" over expanding imports if these jobs may be threatened.

But make no mistake, those elected to Congress know Fast Track is unpopular. For many U.S. Representatives considered "swing" votes on the issue, this summer's final vote is coming a little too close to election time for comfort. And the longer it takes the conference compromise to be reached, the more nervous they will become.

Where Washington's delegation stands

Last month, Washington state's U.S. Senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both fought for Fast Track amendments designed to mitigate the harm to workers, but ultimately voted in favor Fast Track. Neither is likely to switch to a "no" vote on the Fast Track compromise.

Likewise, the state's U.S. Representatives who voted "yes" in December -- Norm Dicks (D), and (R's) Jennifer Dunn, Doc Hastings and George Nethercutt -- should be filed in the "Not Bloody Likely" section of your Fast Track campaign folder. (Although he has a 84% lifetime AFL-CIO Voting Record, proud free-trader Dicks was the only Democrat in America to actually co-sponsor one of the original versions of Fast Track.)

Which leaves the five principled "no" votes from Washington: Reps. Brian Baird (D), Jay Inslee (D), Rick Larsen (D), Jim McDermott (D) and Adam Smith (D). Each has been aggressively lobbied and is under tremendous pressure from Boeing, Microsoft and the rest of the state's corporate heavy hitters to vote "yes." Likewise, the Bush Administration and some Democratic leaders are doing some serious arm-twisting on behalf of Fast Track.

So far, these five have voted with their conscience, and with public opinion, on Fast Track.

But some have also indicated they would be willing to support Fast Track under certain circumstances. An Oct. 29, 2001, letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert signed by Rep. Smith and several other Democrats demanded post-Sept. 11 worker relief and "a balanced and fair (economic stimulus) package (that) must also include infrastructure investment."

"Until both of these critically important issues are resolved in a fairer and more reasonable manner," the letter stated, "we will not support passage of any trade promotional authority, or 'fast track,' legislation." Washington Reps. Brian Baird and Rick Larsen were also among the signatories.

A May 22 CongressDaily report indicated that Rep. Smith and other leaders of a group of moderate Democrats are leaning toward supporting Fast Track.

The big question is, will the conference compromise on Fast Track constitute the "worker relief" previously demanded? Clearly, the infrastructure-investing economic stimulus package called for by House Democrats never happened.

Perhaps the first question should be: "If the amended Senate version of Fast Track was completely intact after the conference, how would you vote on it?" One can easily make the case that the "pro-worker" amendments, such as extended unemployment benefits for workers who lose their jobs when their factory moves overseas, are no different than what workers got in the NAFTA side agreement: window dressing that may soften the landing, but still promotes the fall.

Another important question is what role, if any, will Sens. Murray and Cantwell play in trying to convince their House colleagues to vote "yes"?

Thursday's edition of CongressDaily reported:

An effort could be underway to get top administration officials to seek the assistance of some of the Democratic senators who voted for the trade bill last month to persuade their House counterparts that they should support going to conference -- and perhaps assure them that the Senate bill will survive largely intact. For example, Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who have backed a robust TAA program, could be called upon to persuade a handful of pro-trade Democrats in that state's House delegation, such as Reps. Adam Smith and Jay Inslee.

As it has with each previous Fast Track vote, the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO will closely monitor developments and report them on this website, and via e-mail, fax and traditional mail. We will distribute Calls to Action to generate phone calls and e-mails to our elected representatives as developments warrant. 

So stay tuned.

The Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO is looking for energetic, hardworking people with the ability to learn quickly, who are interested in strengthening grassroots politics in labor. The highly successful Labor-Neighbor program is being expanded to legislative districts around the state, and we need Temporary Field Coordinators.

Last year was a turning point for working families in Washington, due to the successes of Labor-Neighbor in the 21st and 38th legislative districts. Finally, the gridlock caused by the 49-49 tie in the state House of Representatives was broken. But the razor-thin majorities for advocates of working families in both the House and Senate mean we must redouble our efforts. So Labor-Neighbor is expanding tremendously and the WSLC needs Field Coordinators to make 2002 as successful as the 2001 special elections.

It will be the responsibility of the Field Coordinator to effectively communicate with the local unions that are doing volunteer recruitment within their assigned legislative district. The coordinator will work with the local unions and Central Labor Councils to set up a schedule to confirm an efficient amount of volunteers to carry out doorbelling, phone banks and other activities. 

Field Coordinators will serve from Monday, Aug. 12 through Friday, Nov. 8. Successful applicants will need reliable transportation, a valid driver's license and proof of liability insurance. The salary will be $600 per week, plus mileage expenses.

For more information, please contact WSLC Political Director Diane McDaniel at (206) 281-8901, or go ahead and send her a resume to the WSLC, 314 First Ave. West, Seattle, WA, 98119.