Senate Upholds Trade Bill Veto by Just 5 Votes

Senate Republicans held fast Wednesday and narrowly sustained President Reagan’s veto of an omnibus trade bill that would have toughened procedures for protecting U.S. industries suffering because of competition from imports.

The vote to override the veto was 61 to 37, five votes short of the two-thirds majority necessary to make a bill law over the President’s veto. But one of the votes to sustain the veto was cast by Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.), a supporter of the bill who voted against it as part of a parliamentary maneuver to give the Senate a chance to vote on it again at a later date.

Ten Republicans broke with the White House and voted to override. Among the Democrats, only Byrd and William Proxmire of Wisconsin voted to sustain the veto.

Follows House Vote

The House had already voted, 308 to 113, to override the veto.

“They are rejoicing in Japan, champagne corks will be popping in Germany,” declared Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.), the chief architect of the 1,000-page-plus bill.

Reagan vetoed the bill largely because of a provision requiring employers to provide workers with 60 days’ notice of plant closings and major layoffs. Byrd promised that the Democrats would criticize the Republicans during the coming presidential election campaign for opposing a measure that has proved popular with voters, particularly in working-class areas.

After Wednesday’s vote, Reagan urged Congress to send him a second trade bill without the plant-closing provision.

“I am committed to enactment of a responsible trade bill this year,” he said. “I am directing my senior advisers to stand ready to assist the congressional leadership on a new trade bill--one that will strengthen America’s international competitiveness and create even more new jobs for Americans.”

Whether Congress can meet Reagan’s goal remained unclear. Byrd and Bentsen dismissed his hope as nearly impossible because not enough time remains in the legislative year to rework such a complicated bill.

But one key obstacle to a revised bill disappeared late last week when the AFL-CIO decided against actively opposing a second trade bill stripped of the plant-closing provision. Chief proponents of the proposal, such as Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Howard M. Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), soft-pedaled earlier threats to filibuster a substitute trade bill without the plant-closing provision.

Metzenbaum suggested that Congress could pass the provision as a separate bill, particularly if Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis is elected President in November.

“We are not going to let the American worker down,” Metzenbaum said. “This is going to be the law of the land. It may be next week . . . or next month . . . or next year. But it’s going to become the law of the land.”

Provisions of Vetoed Bill

The vetoed bill would have toughened procedures for protecting industries hurt by imports, made it easier for industries to obtain retaliation against foreign trade practices deemed to be unfair and set forth authority for the next President to negotiate international trade agreements.

But stripped from the bill before it reached Reagan were some of its tougher trade provisions. Gone was the amendment sponsored by Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) that would have mandated trade retaliation against Japan and other countries with large trade surpluses with the United States.

For special interests, the trade bill included not only the plant-closing provision but also about $2 billion in agricultural subsidies and repeal of the windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Immediately after the Senate vote, Byrd offered a motion to reconsider it. Only senators who vote on the winning side may enter such motions. The Senate did not vote on the motion, but Byrd may call it up for a vote at any time this year. If it is ever approved, the Senate could cast a second vote on whether to override the veto.

Byrd’s Objective

The object, Byrd explained to reporters afterwards, was to keep the bill alive “until next week or next month or even September” as a fall-back should a revised trade bill fail.