Accord Expected to Clear Congress : Capitol Hill: Lawmakers from some regions plan to oppose the pact, but a NAFTA-style battle is not predicted.

Before the new agreement on world trade can take effect, it must clear one more potentially formidable hurdle: Congress.

Still smarting from the bruising debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement, lawmakers from several states are making little secret of their hope to oppose the 117-nation accord reached in Geneva on Tuesday by resurrecting the same powerful coalition that nearly derailed the regional pact.

But while the new agreement negotiated under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade surely faces an uphill fight in Congress, the consensus of most trade experts and congressional analysts is that it will not be nearly as steep a climb as the one that NAFTA ultimately overcame.

“I don’t think there’s a lot of passion for this (agreement), but it’s unthinkable that we’ll turn down GATT,” said California Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento).

Rep. David Dreier (R-LaVerne), a key backer of the North American accord who was in Geneva during the final days of the global negotiations, added: “I hope we are able to avoid a NAFTA-like battle. With 116 countries involved in this, I’m keeping my fingers crossed.”

President Clinton, asked at a news conference Wednesday whether he expects GATT to be as much of a fight in Congress as the earlier battle, replied tersely: “No.”

But while most lawmakers appeared to agree with Clinton’s assessment, some also warned that congressional approval is not a foregone conclusion and will not come without an intensive lobbying effort that may require the President to dip even deeper into his account of political capital--an account already depleted by the congressional battles over the budget and NAFTA.

The world trade accord’s passage “is not guaranteed,” Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, warned at a meeting of State Department officials Tuesday.

Although most members of Congress were unwilling to comment until they had seen details of the global trade agreement, the outcome was clearly a disappointment to lawmakers from districts and states where textile manufacturing and steelmaking are major industries.

In return for their votes on NAFTA, Clinton had promised several lawmakers from textile-producing states that U.S. trade negotiators would push hard in Geneva for a 15-year phaseout of textile quotas protecting domestic producers from cheaper foreign imports. The final global agreement, however, contained a 10-year phaseout.

Rep. Lewis F. Payne Jr. (D-Va.), a member of the House textile caucus, said domestic manufacturers remain concerned that U.S. quotas will be lifted before American companies gain reciprocal access to Asian markets where textile makers are protected by barriers that keep out U.S. exports. “There is some real concern whether we’ll make sure that our industry has enough (market) access,” Payne said.

An aide to Rep. W. G. (Bill) Hefner (D-N.C.), another lawmaker who represents textile interests, said the congressman still is reviewing the agreement but that it is fair to say that he not only is “very disappointed but extremely disappointed . . . even damn disappointed.”

Lawmakers from Rust Belt states were also disappointed that the agreement does not include tougher anti-dumping laws to protect steelmakers from a flood of cheap foreign imports.

Despite what could be strong opposition from some industries, even opponents concede privately that the new trade pact probably will be approved. Under the “fast-track” procedures approved earlier this year for the trade agreement, Congress will not be able to amend the accord and will have only 90 days from the date Clinton submits it to approve or reject it.

“We have this new anti-trade coalition that came together over NAFTA, and my guess is that at least a part of that alliance will be resurrected to oppose GATT,” a House aide said. “But nobody thinks this is going to be as difficult as NAFTA was. It will be a tough fight, but I think GATT will be passed.”

One reason for optimism is that the agreement is likely to have an adverse effect on far fewer interests than did the North American accord. Approved by a small majority in the House last month, NAFTA aroused visceral opposition from those who feared that Mexico, a very visible economic rival just across the Rio Grande, will steal away U.S. jobs with its cheap labor and poor working conditions.

But in the global agreement involving 117 nations, the adversaries are more distant and diffuse and the north-south emotionalism that Ross Perot aroused with his warning about the “giant sucking sound” of jobs moving south will not be a factor in the debate.

Another factor in the global accord’s favor is the apparent reluctance of many Democrats who voted against the regional pact to have two back-to-back protectionist votes appear on their records.

House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), for instance, was said by aides to be leaning in favor of the global agreement, even though he was one of NAFTA’s principal opponents. Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), another opponent of the regional agreement, also signaled his none-too-enthusiastic support for GATT, saying that on balance the trade accord’s “pluses outweigh its minuses.”

Many issues that stirred opposition to NAFTA, such as concern over wage disparities and immigration, “are just not present in the GATT debate,” noted Dreier, who added that California, because of its size and trading links with Asia, may stand to “benefit more than any other state in the nation” from the global accord.

A senior U.S. diplomat in Europe summed up the difference between the two trade pacts: Whereas NAFTA was easier to negotiate than to pass, he said, the GATT agreement should be easier to pass than it was to negotiate.

Times staff writer Joel Havemann in Brussels contributed to this report.