April 19, 2000 Lawmakers dismiss protestors' impact on China trade bill By Melanie Fonder ( reprinted from http://www.hillnews.com ) With few exceptions, lawmakers dismissed the long-term effects of the protests against the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Although demonstrators closed downtown Washington and some 1300 were arrested, these events were unlikely to influence the vote on permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China or affect U.S. trade policy, according to a spot-check of legislators interviewed by The Hill. One exception was Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who spoke to protesters on the Ellipse on Sunday, and insisted the demonstrations are bound to have an effect on public policy. "What we're seeing is a rising consciousness, particularly among young people, about the anti-democratic impact of globalization, particularly in respect to institutions which pay very little attention to human rights issues," Kucinich said. But most House members - already out of town for the two-week Easter district work period - were a bit more skeptical and, in some cases, critical of the impact of the demonstrators. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said the lack of a national debate on issues like debt relief for poor nations would erase any possible impact on Congress. He called the protesters a "sort of arrogant upper white middle-class, self-righteous group." " I think the protesters were sort of like imitators of the 1960s trying to create an issue over something that's not really there," King said. King, who does not support PNTR, specifically because of human rights issues, said the protesters had not made a national case. "If anything, I think they hurt their cause, resorting to civil disobedience when there was no groundwork laid - trying to shut down a city," King said. "There's no national debate on it. In the '60s, there was a huge debate going on everywhere." Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) said, though the images on the news would have been compelling to his colleagues, there would be no effect legislatively. "We pay attention to it. Will it change anyone's minds? No," Ackerman said, adding that, "You don't see a whole lot of folks demonstrating across the nation on this issue." John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), said the lack of organization by the protesters was apparent. "It seemed to be kind of a ragtag bunch - I think part of it was just for fun and to get on TV," Feehery said. "I'm not really sure what the goals were." "If what the protesters want to do is reform the IMF [International Monetary Fund] and the World Bank, welcome to the fight. There's a lot or Republicans who have been working on that for a long time," he added. As the PNTR debate has typically crossed partisan lines, Rep. Bob Matsui (D-Calif.), agreed the protesters had no far-reaching impact on the expected May 22 vote. "Members are looking at this vote in terms of the national interest, and how it will impact the individual member," Matsui said, referring to members' weighing the conflicting positions of interest groups in their districts. A Democratic staffer agreed, saying labor unions had more impact last week protesting against PNTR for China. "When the unions were here and the constituents were here [visiting congressional offices], that had some impact," the staffer said. But, he added, the protests had less of an impact because they lacked an organized focus and were smaller than the demonstrations in Seattle last year. More importantly, what will impact the PNTR vote more than the protesters, many say, is today's announcement by Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) that he will not support the trade agreement with China. Last week, Mark Foley (R-Fla.) took to the House floor berating a comment from Minority Whip David Bonior (D-Mich.) praising the Seattle protesters. "I hope and pray that the performance that we are anticipating in the seat of our government, the nation's capital, is not designed to bring about disgraceful headlines about riot police, pepper spray and destruction of personal property. I thought anarchy like that only existed in Third World nations, but if people disagree with a viewpoint on trade, if people disagree on human rights in China, their response is to riot in the streets and destroy property to get their viewpoint heard." Bonior said on MSNBC's "The Mitchell Report" on Monday that he supported the right of the demonstrators to make their case in Washington. "It's important that people be able to come to the nation's capital and peacefully protest. ... It's an important part of our Democratic tradition," Bonior said. Kucinich, for his part, said the protests were just the beginning of what will become a national debate and compared them to other eras of protests for civil rights and against the Vietnam War. "That's why I was there. I recognized what's developing. ... I see it as having the potential to really change politics - not only in this country, but to change economic policy in the world," Kucinich said. "Wave after wave of civic activism has an impact on public policy, it's inevitable." Kucinich declined to comment on the police reaction in Washington compared to Seattle, where more violence took place, but said he would be addressing police action in the "next few days." "There is a role for peaceful, non-violent demonstrations. I don't endorse violence, period," he said. Mary Lynn F. Jones contributed to this report.