Lobbying for ‘Fast-Track’ Trade Power Intensifies

Both houses of Congress were pressed into service Saturday as lawmakers made a mad dash to wrap up the year’s work and prepared for a cliffhanger vote on President Clinton’s bid for expanded trade authority.

The Senate and House struggled to break deadlocks on a range of hot-button issues--from abortion funding to the 2000 census--that have stalled several funding bills that must be passed before Congress can adjourn for the year.

But much of the action occurred behind closed doors, as the countdown continued toward today’s scheduled House vote on Clinton’s request for “fast-track” trade negotiating authority.

The White House sent a phalanx of Cabinet officials and other top aides to make peace with a majority of House Democrats furious about Clinton’s efforts to woo Republican support for the fast-track trade legislation.

In addition, the administration pursued intensive, one-on-one negotiations in an effort to pick up fast-track votes from within a tiny and dwindling band of Democratic fence-sitters.

“This is a blitz,” said U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson, one of the administration officials on Capitol Hill to work the issue. “It’s going down to the wire.”

Clinton, in his Saturday radio address, made another appeal for House members to support the fast-track legislation, which would strengthen the president’s hand in negotiating trade agreements by allowing Congress to accept or reject--but not amend--the pacts.

“A ‘yes’ vote is a vote for confidence in the world’s strongest economy,” Clinton said. “But a ‘no’ vote says we don’t want our country to negotiate lower trade barriers--we’re pulling back.”

The day’s frenzy of lobbying did not seem to have much effect on undecided members, many of whom may be waiting until the roll is called today before making their positions known. Aides on both sides reported little movement in the head count, leaving the administration a few votes short of the majority needed for passage.

Nonetheless, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said he was encouraging the administration to remain committed to holding the vote today. “My advice is to go for it,” he said.

But some lawmakers said the vote might be delayed if Clinton cannot round up the votes he needs. The House is scheduled to go into session at 2 p.m. EST, but a final vote on the fast-track bill is unlikely before the evening. If the measure passes the House, Senate approval is considered probable.

While the fate of fast-track remained undecided, Capitol Hill became a legislative three-ring circus as House and Senate leaders pushed to wrap up the rest of this year’s work by today or Monday.

In major action Saturday, Congress sent to the White House two bills challenging presidential priorities. The Senate voted, 91-4, to join the House in passing an $80-billion social-spending bill that includes a rider delaying Clinton’s plan to establish national education testing. The compromise was declared a victory by conservatives opposed to national testing, but Clinton has said he would accept it.

The House voted, 352-64, to approve a bill overturning Clinton’s line-item veto of 38 military construction projects worth $287 million. The House’s overwhelming vote, which followed a comparably strong vote in the Senate, suggests that Congress could override Clinton if he were to veto the overall measure, as he has promised.

In an effort to break the logjam on three remaining appropriations bills--for the District of Columbia, the departments of State, Commerce and Justice and foreign aid--the Senate Appropriations Committee passed a measure that combined all three bills into one. But House leaders said the combined legislation includes language on abortion and other issues unacceptable to the lower chamber.

The fast-track legislation had been scheduled to come to a vote in the House on Friday, but the White House requested a postponement until at least today so it would have more time to round up support.

The politics of the issue have become deeply entwined in the process of wrapping up annual appropriations bills. Many conservative House Republicans have declared they would not vote for fast-track unless the White House makes concessions on a number of fronts, including Clinton’s proposal to establish national education testing, a dispute about the 2000 census and antiabortion restrictions on foreign aid.

House Democrats, most of whom oppose the fast-track legislation, have been furious at the White House for what they see as an effort to make concessions in those areas to pick up Republican votes.

They called top administration officials--including Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles--to an emotional meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, where members aired their fury at the maneuvering around fast-track.

Administration officials have denied that they are making deals to pick up fast-track votes, particularly on the contentious issue of abortion. Democrats who attended the closed-door meeting said Bowles reiterated the White House’s commitment to veto foreign aid legislation if it includes antiabortion language.

The abortion dispute is one of the biggest obstacles to completing work on this year’s funding bills. At issue is a provision of current law that prohibits international family-planning organizations from using U.S. aid for abortions.

Conservative Republicans in the House want to tighten that restriction to prohibit U.S. aid from going to any international group that uses even its own money for abortions. The Senate and the White House have opposed that.

On the census, leaders of the black, Latino and Asian congressional caucuses assembled in anger Saturday after hearing of the deal the White House struck with GOP leaders regarding the conduct of the population count in 2000.

The agreement, which would allow the Census Bureau to test a statistical counting method in Sacramento during a trial census in April, leaves GOP lawmakers ample opportunity next year to kill the sampling method, which they fiercely oppose.

Whether sampling is used has great import for California, which was severely undercounted in 1990 and lost out on federal funding and one congressional seat as a result.

Leaders of the minority caucuses, who wanted broader use of sampling, thought Clinton had conceded too much on the census in order to win votes for the expanded trade negotiating authority he desperately wants. They accused him of forsaking minority groups, children and the poor, who were the most undercounted in 1990.

“Mr. President, don’t sell us out over fast-track,” implored Rep. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).

Their ire won at least one concession. An oversight board set up to report on the census that had previously been Republican-dominated, will now be made up of an equal of Republicans and Democrats. It was unclear, however, whether Republicans would share the $3 million that would fund the board, money Democrats say will be used as a public relations machine to make sure census sampling is killed next year.

While the maneuvering on appropriations bills could help Clinton pick up Republican votes for fast-track, the White House turned up the heat in an effort to garner more support among the handful of fence-sitting Democrats.

Among them is Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), a leader of abortion-rights forces who said she might be more inclined to oppose fast-track if Clinton compromised on his opposition to new restrictions on international family planning.

Clinton’s aides have been wooing Democrats representing agricultural districts with promises of trade protections for commodities such as peanuts, citrus and tomatoes that might be hurt by expanded foreign trade.

Some Democrats said the White House had been promising presidential help in political fund-raising to those who come on board, and who fear a loss of labor contributions in retaliation.

The combined effect of White House promises and GOP leaders’ control over congressional perks could be enough to produce a come-from-behind victory, one fast-track opponent conceded.

“I fear that they will win,” said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.). “They always do.”

* SANCHEZ IMPASSE: GOP leaders refused to debate the dispute over Rep. Loretta Sanchez’s election victory. A38

* CLINTON DRIVEN: Washington is discovering how badly the president wants fast-track authority. A24