Clinton Lobbying Wins More Votes for NAFTA Pact : Trade: President appears to be on the verge of victory in showdown today. Opponents grumble about the White House making side deals to win converts.

With a final flurry of pleas, promises and pressure politics, President Clinton appeared on the verge Tuesday of flushing out enough support from his own party in the House to win today’s vote on the North American Free Trade Agreement.

“We’re getting there,” a restrained President said at midday, as he met with small groups of uncommitted lawmakers while Administration officials worked the corridors of Congress to pin down the 218 votes needed to approve the trade pact.

One by one, House members announced their intentions to support the agreement, until at least a score--either opposed in earlier counts or on the fence--joined the column of those saying that they would vote for it. Among them were three Californians--Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Glendale), Rep. Jay C. Kim (R-Diamond Bar), and Rep. Sam Farr (D-Carmel).

William Daley, who has coordinated the White House campaign, said that Farr had been counted as an opponent.

“When they come back with a ‘yes’ . . . that’s a big plus,” Daley said.

At the same time, opponents grumbled about the opportunity for the White House to buy support through separate side deals with members of Congress. They talked of challenging, as an unconstitutional abdication of U.S. sovereignty, the agreement’s establishment of tri-national commissions to settle disputes. Their complaints sent a clear signal that they, too, expect the agreement to win approval.

“Clearly they’ve got the money, so they’ve got the momentum,” said an aide to House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, the highest ranking Democrat to oppose the agreement.

“We don’t have any goodies to offer and the White House is selling like crazy. I’ve never seen anything like it,” said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). “You want protection for citrus, for the broom industry? You can get it. You want airplanes built in your district? You got it.”

The Administration, however, attempted to characterize the last-minute negotiations less as blatant “deals” and more as appropriate efforts to clarify and modify the trade pact to protect members’ constituents.

The opponents, who had appeared to hold a winning hand until Monday, insisted throughout the day that 221 or 222 House members were committed to voting against the trade deal. But the grim expressions displayed by the procession of legislators emerging from a strategy session in the office of Rep. David E. Bonior (D-Mich.), the House majority whip who split with Clinton on the trade pact, belied their optimistic predictions.

A crucial turn toward approval appeared to have occurred in Florida’s 23-member congressional delegation. It had been withholding support until the White House could satisfy it that the state’s citrus and tomato growers would be protected from competition with Mexico. At least a dozen representatives from the state said they would support the pact.

“In my judgment, there are enough votes to sustain NAFTA now,” said Bill Frenzel, a former Republican representative from Minnesota who has led the White House efforts to line up Republican support.

A survey conducted by the Associated Press found 214 House members supporting the pact or likely to do so and 197 opposed to it.

But despite growing White House confidence, one veteran lobbyist warned that the final vote remains uncertain. Some lawmakers are likely to shift to the opposition as powerful home-district interests weigh in at the last minute, he said.

If the House approves the agreement, the Senate, which is considered more amendable to the President’s position, is expected to vote on it early next week.

The trade plan was negotiated with Mexico and Canada by the George Bush Administration. Supplemental pacts to protect the environment and workers’ rights were negotiated by the Clinton Administration. Today’s vote will be on legislation that would implement the entire package.

Under the agreement, most tariffs, quotas and other barriers to unrestrained commerce among the three countries would be eliminated over the next 15 years. It would go into effect Jan. 1, 1994, and would create a potential market of 360 million to 370 million people--then nearly twice that, Clinton pointed out, if it is expanded eventually to include all of Latin America.

But the debate over the plan has expanded in recent weeks beyond issues about the trade agreement. Clinton made it a test of his presidential leadership, a crucial step in wrapping up seven years of attempts to modernize the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades, which governs world commerce, and a judgment on whether the United States would take a primary position in the global economy in the post-Cold War era or return to the insular, protectionist policies that were credited with fueling the Great Depression.

“It is an insurance policy against protectionism in the rest of the world and it is an enormous lever for us to convince our friends in the Pacific region and our friends in Europe to complete the worldwide trade agreement, the GATT round, by the end of the year so we can continue to expand the global economy,” the President said.

Opponents saw it as something much less.

They said that the side agreements are too weak to make Mexico enforce its environmental laws and would put U.S. workers at a disadvantage as they try to compete with a nation that does not respect workers’ rights to organize.

But throughout the debate they focused primarily on economic questions--raising the argument that the dismantling of U.S. tariffs would invite manufacturers to move their operations to Mexico to take advantage of lower wage rates.

On Tuesday, the finer points of the debate were not heard, replaced by the tumult of intense politicking of the sort seen only occasionally in the often somnambulant Capitol.

By the hour, members called news conferences to declare how they would vote. Fax machines purred with last-minute position papers. And behind closed doors, factions caucused to plot end-game tactics.

Clinton met with 14 members of the House, most of them publicly undecided, spoke by telephone with another 10 and sought to reinforce his message in a visit with some of the nation’s governors meeting in Washington.

“This really is a vote about whether we’re going to try to hold on to yesterday’s economy or embrace tomorrow’s economy,” Clinton said. “Tomorrow the Congress has simply got to vote for hope over fear, for the future over the past. They’ve got to vote for confidence in the ability of the American people to compete and win.”

Senior White House officials said that victory would only slip from Clinton’s grasp if Republicans defy their party leadership and vote against the agreement in a last-minute attempt to torpedo the President.

The question of what deals the White House had made to grind down the opposition percolated throughout the day.

Rep. Floyd H. Flake (D-N.Y.) met with Clinton, announced his support, and said he hoped his district would receive a Small Business Administration pilot program for urban areas that Clinton pledged to support.

Rep. W. G. (Bill) Hefner (D-N.C.) was assured by the White House that the pact’s provisions relating to the textile and apparel industries would be subject to tough enforcement. He, too, announced his support.

At a news conference outside the Capitol, Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire who has fought the agreement since his third-place finish in last year’s presidential campaign, said: “Nothing could offend the American people more than spending billions of taxpayer dollars to buy votes.”

Seeking to blunt such criticism, a senior Administration official said that “there has been no increase in federal spending for anything.”

Clinton told reporters that the House members with whom he has met “have asked me to help their people” and have sought clarifications about such issues as plans to clean up the U.S.-Mexican border and job training.

“That is the job of a member of Congress,” he said.

Times staff writers Karen Tumulty and David Lauter and Washington Bureau Chief Jack Nelson contributed to this story.

Watching the NAFTA Vote

TIMETABLE: The House convenes at 6 a.m. PST. An hour or more may be spent discussing and voting on the parliamentary procedures under which the North American Free Trade Agreement will be considered. Eight hours are scheduled for debate on the agreement itself. The final vote is expected between 5 and 7 p.m. PST.

The legislation implementing the trade pact is not subject to amendment. Because it is a trade agreement instead of a treaty, NAFTA must be approved by a simple majority in both the House and Senate. Treaties require approval by two-thirds of the members of the Senate only.

TELEVISION: C-SPAN will cover the House debate in its entirety, beginning at 6 a.m. Cable News Network plans to provide frequent live reports throughout the day but not gavel-to-gavel coverage.

CALIFORNIA DELEGATION: A Tuesday survey of House members indicated that NAFTA will win the approval of a majority of California’s delegation.

Declared yes votes (28): Democrats --Becerra, Beilenson, Berman, Dooley, Eshoo, Farr, Fazio, Lehman, Matsui, Mineta, Pelosi, Roybal-Allard, Torres; Republicans --Calvert, Cox, Cunningham, Dornan, Dreier, Horn, Huffington, Kim, Lewis, McCandless, McKeon, Moorhead, Packard, Rohrabacher, Thomas.

Declared no votes (19): Democrats --Condit, Dellums, Dixon, Edwards, Filner, Hamburg, Harman, Lantos, Miller, Schenk, Stark, Tucker, Waxman, Woolsey. Republicans --Doolittle, Gallegly, Herger, Hunter, Royce.

Undecided (5): Democrats --Brown, Martinez, Waters; Republicans --Baker, Pombo.

NEXT STEP: If the House approves NAFTA, it goes to the Senate, where approval appears virtually certain. The trade agreement also must be approved by the parliaments of Mexico and Canada, which is considered assured. If all three countries ratify the pact, it will take effect Jan. 1, 1994.