Administration Maps Strategy for Revised Trade Bill

Reagan Administration officials sought Thursday to devise a strategy to secure enactment of a trade bill after President Reagan vetoes the bill that passed Congress the day before.

“We need a trade bill this year,” Clayton K. Yeutter, the U.S. trade representative, said in a television interview. “There are a lot of good things in that legislation, so if a couple of necessary corrections are made and the bill comes back, I’m really quite confident the President would sign it.”

Most objectionable to the Administration is a requirement, long sought by organized labor, that major manufacturers provide 60 days’ advance notice of plant closings and major layoffs.

Congress has refused to abandon that provision, setting the stage for a veto expected in the next two weeks. “The President will veto the bill,” White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater told reporters, despite Democrats’ continuing pleas that he change his mind.

Opposes Other Aspects

Although Administration officials say Reagan also opposes several other aspects of the bill, the White House and Republican leaders do not want to appear to be staunchly against reforms that have voter appeal and could become a potent political issue in the campaign.

“We don’t want to create an impression that we don’t want a bill,” one Administration official said. “We will do everything we can to encourage a prompt return of the bill” in revised form.

Reagan’s trade strategists indicated that they are committed to trying to work with the Democratic chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to seek a compromise, but it is not clear whether the Democrats will respond.

“If the House leadership is inclined, a revised bill could be out on the floor within days after a Reagan veto is sustained” with a solid chance of White House approval, one Adminstration official said.

An Issue for Campaign

However, “there is still some sentiment in the House leadership to keep this an issue” that could be used against Republicans in the campaign, rather than joining in a compromise, one Ways and Means Committee aide said. “But over here we figure we have an issue anyhow, on plant closings and trade, so why not get the bill too? You won’t lose the issue, and you also can get the bill.”

The bill, aimed at cutting into America’s enormous trade deficit, would toughen U.S. retaliation against unfair trading practices of other countries, streamline procedures for aiding industries suffering from foreign competition, authorize new retraining programs for workers who lose their jobs because of imports and create new farm export subsidies.

The measure passed the Senate 63 to 36 Thursday after receiving a strong endorsement in the House. However, the margin of Senate passage was not enough to override a veto.

Reagan has complained that some aspects of the measure would bring retaliation from U.S. trading partners. The mandatory notice of plant closings, he contended, would harm companies’ efforts to obtain last-ditch financing that could keep them afloat.

A Matter for Contracts

“As an old labor union president, I suggest that’s a matter that belongs in the labor-management contracts between the unions and the people,” Reagan remarked in a brief exchange with reporters before a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

In preparing Reagan’s veto message for the bill, Administration officials said they will mention a number of objections to avoid resting the action entirely on the plant-closings notice--an emotional issue for many blue-collar voters.

“Republican senators have told us they want enough else in the message to give them cover, so they won’t seem to be voting specifically against plant closings when they sustain the veto,” one Adminstration trade strategist said. “We intend to work very closely with the minority leadership in both houses and discuss with them the best strategy.”

In his veto, Reagan is expected to cite objections to the provision setting up the job training benefits for displaced workers--a program the Administration has called a “budget buster.”