Big Labor's Trade Shutdown

Ignoring pleas from outraged South American governments, Democratic House leaders were adamant this week about Congress going into its August recess without taking promised action on free-trade agreements with Peru and Panama. Instead, two senior House Democrats appear determined to visit those two rare Latin American friends of the United States to hector them into passing domestic legislation as a prerequisite for congressional approval of already-negotiated trade pacts.

Why did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi renege on her previous commitment? She dances to the tune of AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who preaches protectionism. Hostility toward not only the Peru and Panama pacts but also a vital agreement with Colombia can be traced to influence on U.S. unions by South America's leftist labor leaders, originating in Hugo Chávez's Venezuela.

Beyond U.S. unpopularity in the Western Hemisphere, this exposes deeper problems for the Democratic majority in Congress. While the AFL-CIO's authority is diminished in the labor movement and among the nation's workers, its chief rules in Congress. Democrats bowed to Sweeney's wishes in voting to end secret ballots in union-recognition elections, but the more audacious demonstration of labor's influence on Capitol Hill was getting the House leadership to renege on a bipartisan deal affecting world trade.

That deal seemed too good to be true when it was unveiled May 10. That day, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel and his trade subcommittee chairman, Rep. Sander Levin, announced approval of labor and environmental provisions in the Peru and Panama pacts. Their statement also opened the door to possible approval of the Colombia trade agreement.

Organized labor did not wait long to be heard from. The next day, Sweeney issued a statement indicating that the labor and environmental guarantees Rangel agreed to were inadequate. He contended that "the agreement fails to adequately address issues related to the outsourcing of U.S. jobs and the ability of foreign corporations to challenge U.S. laws." Sweeney dismissed the negotiated pact with Colombia, this country's best ally in South America, as "a flawed agreement with [a] gross human rights violator."

Sweeney makes life difficult for Rangel, who seeks a record of achievement in a chairmanship for which he waited many years. But when labor commands, Sandy Levin obeys. When I met him in the 1970s, Levin was a high-minded liberal as a party and legislative leader and candidate for governor of Michigan. In Congress, he is an errand boy for organized labor who on June 18 withdrew previous support for the trade agreements.

The shocker came June 29 as Congress cleared out of Washington for the Fourth of July holiday. Pelosi announced that Rangel and presumably Levin would travel to Peru and Panama to demand changes in their labor laws as payment for the negotiated trade agreements. She rejected the Colombian pact out of hand.

U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, a former Senate staffer, usually treats Congress with care -- but not in a July 6 letter to Pelosi: "Unilaterally requiring another sovereign country to change its domestic laws before the U.S. approves a trade agreement would be a fundamental break with U.S. laws, policy and practice. No past administration or Congress -- Democratic or Republican -- has taken such a step. Nor would the United States agree to such a procedure if demanded by another nation."

Schwab's strong words had no effect. Nor did protests from Peruvian President Alan García and Colombian President Álvaro Uribe. Democratic leaders are impervious to the reality that Colombia, Peru and Panama enjoy one-way trade access to the United States, whereas the agreements would open their markets to U.S. goods. Nor do the Democrats show concern about alienating Uribe and García as Chávez's menace spreads across the hemisphere.

Sweeney's marching orders are not limited to Latin America. He dismisses the pact that finally would open South Korea to U.S. autos as "a losing, one-sided agreement." Obediently, House Democratic leaders declared the Korean deal dead on arrival. At least Rangel and Levin are not headed off to scold Seoul -- not yet, anyway.

© 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.