Foley Suggests Delay of Free Trade Pact Vote, Creates Confusion

With the Clinton Administration about to launch a full-dress effort to win approval of the three-way trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, the senior House Democrat suggested for the first time Thursday that a vote on the pact may not take place until early next year.

After the comments by House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), Administration officials and congressional supporters of the pact emphasized President Clinton’s commitment to the North American Free Trade Agreement, apparently fearing that any suggestion of delay would carry with it a suggestion of weakness.

Administration and congressional figures insisted late Thursday that Foley was referring only to the prospects that arcane House regulations could delay a vote--still expected by mid-December--until early January, and Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.), insisted: “We expect (the trade agreement) to come up and pass this year.”

While Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento), one of the key House Democrats supporting the agreement, termed the question of a delay a “legitimate technical issue,” he discounted the notion that it demonstrated “a lack of resolve by the President or anyone else.” And White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers insisted that the trade agreement had not “been put on the back burner.”

“There has been no change on the timing or our commitment to NAFTA,” Myers said, although she and other Administration officials acknowledged that a delay until January is possible.

Administration denials notwithstanding, Foley’s comments and the flap that ensued illustrated the sensitivity of the debate over the agreement and the certainty that the White House will have to pull out all stops to gain its approval by majorities of both the House and Senate.

The agreement, negotiated by the George Bush Administration, with supplemental agreements added in talks conducted by Clinton aides, would eliminate tariffs and other obstacles to free trade among the United States, Mexico and Canada over the next 15 years. It is supposed to take effect Jan. 1. Opponents fear that it would prompt manufacturers to move jobs to Mexico, while proponents argue that it would open new markets for U.S. goods by eliminating Mexican tariffs.

To some extent, the questions about the President’s commitment flow from the difficult agenda he faces this autumn as the Administration presses for approval of the trade agreement, as well as health care reform and the proposals to redesign government.

White House officials acknowledged that Clinton’s focus on the other issues will cut into the time he can devote to the trade pact.