As this magazine went to press, Congress was preparing to vote on President Clinton's request to grant permanent normal trade relations to China.

While passage in the Senate seemed virtually certain, the vote in the House was expected to be close. The question was whether the President could convince enough House Democrats to join with a majority of Republicans to reach the magic number of 218 votes needed for passage.

Like President Clinton and Vice President Gore, most New Democrats support granting permanent normal trade relations to China. But too many other Democrats don't. House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt opposes it. So does House Minority Whip David Bonior and most members of the House Democratic leadership. And so does the AFL-CIO and many liberal interest groups aligned with the Democrats.

The debate over China's trade status is first and foremost about U.S. politics. It is not about the merits of the historic deal the Clinton administration negotiated to open up the Chinese economy to U.S. goods and services as part of China's accession to the World Trade Organization. If it were, the vote in favor would be a slam dunk.

Unlike most trade agreements, this one is one-sided. China made all the concessions; we made none. To get into the WTO, China has to do all the giving. This deal is so skewed in our favor that some have called it America's biggest steal since the Louisiana Purchase. You'd hardly expect any member of Congress to reject a cost-free opportunity to open up one of the world's largest consumer markets.

In April and early May, I made dozens of visits to House Democrats to talk about the issue. Virtually no member of Congress with whom I've met argues that, on its merits, the deal is bad for the United States. If Congress voted by secret ballot, I have no doubt that China would be granted permanent normal trade relationswith a large majority of House Democrats voting "yes."

But remember, this vote isn't about the merits of the proposal. It's about politics.

Worried About Survival

Here's how many House Democrats see the vote. They're worried about their own survival. They're afraid that if they oppose organized labor on trade with China, they'll risk losing labor money and support. That would put their congressional seats in jeopardy.

Plus, having spent the last six years in the minority, all House Democrats want to win back the majority this year. Most of them see labor money and manpower as crucial to victory. So, even if their own seats are safe, many Democrats have concluded that antagonizing organized labor over trade with China is too big a risk. Moreover, they're pretty certain that the business community, which supports permanent normal trade relations for China, won't be lining up to replace any campaign contributions to Democrats that labor unions might withhold. In fact, most Democrats expect, with good reason, that most of the business community will back Republicans for House seats, even against Democrats who vote to make China's trade status permanent.

Finally, some Democrats question why the President has pushed for a vote this year. The implication is that by standing firm against labor and other Democratic groups that oppose expanded trade with China, the President and his allies are somehow splitting our party and going against the "real" Democratic position on trade.

In short, a lot of House Democrats sincerely believe that a vote to make China's trade status permanent will diminish their own chances of winning reelection and our party's chances of retaking the House this fall. Under those circumstances, it's not surprising that a majority of House Democrats will probably vote "no."

Critics Are Wrong

I don't doubt that many Democratic opponents of permanent normal trade relations for China are worried about the political fallout of the vote. I just believe their concerns are unfounded.

A vote for expanded trade with China will enhance, not diminish, the Democrats' chances of winning control of the House this Novemberand of holding onto majority status throughout this decade.

I'm absolutely convinced that in today's new global economy, the American people will not turn to a protectionist party for national leadership. That's why no legitimate presidential candidate in either party in this year's primaries opposed permanent normal trade relations for China. If the American people don't think a protectionist party belongs in the White House, they're not likely to vote for such a party to control Congress.

Throughout our history, Democrats have always been the party of open trade. By supporting expanded trade with China, Democrats honor the tradition of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and other Democratic presidents who expanded trade to cultivate American prosperity. It is the opponents, not the backers, of permanent normal trade relations for China who are splitting with that hallowed Democratic tradition.

In the Information Age, supporting expanded trade is good politics precisely because it's good policy.

Let's not forget that President Clinton, who made permanent normal trade relations for China his top priority this year, is the first Democrat to be elected and reelected to the White House in six decades. The President's phenomenal record on the economydue in large part to his unwavering commitment to expanded trade and opening new markets abroadgives Democrats their best chance for victory this fall. And most of the swing seats that Democrats must win to reclaim the majority in the House are in suburban districts, whose voters strongly support energetic American engagement in the global economy.

Conventional Wisdom

I realize my point of view runs counter to the purveyors of conventional wisdom in Washington, who often can't see beyond the next campaign check. That's nothing new. New Democrats learned long ago that to effect change, we had to take on our party's orthodoxies. If we had listened to conventional wisdom, we never would have balanced the budget, ended welfare, or taken a tough stance against crime. Many Democratic interest groups opposed us on those policies, and still do. But those policies were good for our country and good for our party. They helped us win back and hold onto the White House.

Today, many of those same interest groups have rallied in opposition to permanent normal trade relations for China. This policy, too, will prove good for our country and good for our party. I hope by the time you read this enough Democrats will have found the courage to support the President on this vote. For a vote in favor of expanded trade with China will enhance our chances of winning back control of the House this year and holding it throughout this decade.

This is a classic case of special interests conflicting with the national interest. When picking their national leadership, the American people will always choose the national interest.

Al From is president of the Democratic Leadership Council.