House Puts Off Showdown on Trade Measure

In an embarrassing political setback, President Clinton was forced Friday to ask the House to put off a scheduled vote on his “fast-track” trade bill after backers failed to win enough support to pass the measure.

At Clinton’s request, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) announced that GOP leaders were rescheduling the fast-track vote for Sunday to give the president more time to muster the needed votes.

Gingrich acted after the White House was unable to persuade more than 45 of the 205 House Democrats to vote for the bill, which would allow the president to get a quick up-or-down vote from Congress on new international trade accords.

Both administration and congressional strategists working for the bill said they were about 15 votes short of the 218 needed to push the legislation through the House. The measure is expected to pass the Senate easily.

White House officials said the president would spend today personally trying to persuade 20 to 25 undecided lawmakers and potential vote-switchers to support the legislation.

Despite Clinton’s personal efforts at arm-twisting, officials conceded that it was not clear whether the president will prevail. Defeat of the measure would deal a significant blow to Clinton, who has staked much of his political prestige on passage of the controversial legislation.

Administration officials said the failure of Congress to provide fast-track authority would send a signal to U.S. trading partners that some analysts believe could have an adverse effect on world financial markets.

Clinton has said he needs fast-track authority to complete negotiations on revised global rules affecting trade in agriculture and financial services, as well as on pacts opening new markets in Asia and Latin America.

Under the measure--which deals solely with procedural issues--Congress would vote for or against new trade accords but would be barred from rewriting individual provisions.

U.S. trading partners--leery of congressional tinkering with agreements that have been negotiated--have refused even to begin trade talks with the United States until Congress has granted Clinton fast-track authority.

Even if Congress ultimately approves the bill, Friday’s postponement was a significant setback for Clinton, who has been running into a wall of distrust on Capitol Hill despite his high standing in the polls.

In a sign of the growing animosity between Clinton and members of his party in the House, several Democratic lawmakers publicly lambasted the president for implying in remarks televised Thursday that they were captives of organized labor.

“I for one deeply resent the suggestion that those of us that are opposed to fast-track are more concerned with politics than policy,” said Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.). “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) called Clinton’s comments a “great insult,” contending that many Democrats were elected by large majorities and “don’t need” labor to win. “We can’t be threatened,” she said.

Some Democrats also were suspicious that the president may be giving away too much on key issues. The president has made concessions to Republicans on several issues--including the use of statistical sampling in the 2000 census and national reading tests for fourth-graders and math tests for eighth-graders--in an effort to attract votes for fast-track.

“Right now there’s a real concern that the president is cutting deals . . . jeopardizing Democratic initiatives,” said Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles), in a view expressed by many Democrats. “It’s very troubling.”

Officials insisted, however, that the White House concessions were essentially cosmetic. Republicans are expected to outline details of any agreements after the fast-track vote on Sunday.

The White House made no effort to hide Clinton’s personal efforts to win more backing for the fast-track bill. Officials said the president was seeing about a dozen lawmakers on Friday and calling several others.

The bargaining was so open that Commerce Secretary Bill Daley, who spent the day on Capitol Hill, quipped to reporters: “If you like attention, this is a good time to be undecided.”

There was relatively little movement in the fast-track head count Friday. Five more House members announced that they planned to vote for the bill, but White House officials said they still were short of the votes needed for passage.

Unofficial counts suggested that only 45 House Democrats support the fast-track bill, while 160 oppose it. About 155 Republicans were believed to be for the bill, with 50 to 60 against it.

Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, the president’s national security advisor, told reporters that he is optimistic about the vote Sunday. “I think it’s close--we are gaining votes,” he said. “The president is going full throttle.” Berger was one of several top administration officials dispatched to Capitol Hill to lobby lawmakers.

However, House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who is leading the opposition to the bill, said the legislation had been dealt “a significant blow.”

“I’m confident that on a straight up-or-down vote on the Republican fast-track, it will lose,” he said.”

Meanwhile, Senate leaders successfully dropped a surprise amendment tacked onto that chamber’s fast-track bill Thursday. The amendment would have blocked new clean-air rules by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The provision, drafted by Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), had angered Senate Democrats, who had warned that allowing it to stand would wreck prospects for passage of the bill in the Senate.

Times staff writers Elizabeth Shogren and Edwin Chen contributed to this report.

* CENSUS ‘SAMPLING’ TEST: House leaders crafted a deal on testing census “sampling.” A19

* NATIONAL EXAM TUSSLE: President Clinton’s plan for national exams is delayed. A20

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Where Votes Stand

House support for or against “fast-track” legislation will probably shift right up until Sunday’s vote. Here is an estimate of where the issue stood on Friday.

*--*

For Against Democrats 45 160 Republicans 155 50-60 Total 200 210-220

*--*

Needed to pass 218