Clinton Fast-Track Push a Capital Surprise

Amid all the frenetic deal-making surrounding President Clinton’s controversial fast-track trade legislation, official Washington is discovering something it did not know before:

Clinton wants fast-track trade negotiating authority--and he wants it badly.

Over the past few days, the capital has been treated to an arm-twisting and vote-hustling campaign rarely seen here since the days when Lyndon B. Johnson was pushing through his Great Society programs.

On orders from the president, Cabinet officers have been dispatched to Capitol Hill to promise reluctant lawmakers special treatment for key industries in their home districts.

Undecided House members have been summoned to the Oval Office for coveted one-on-one chats with the chief executive.

Finally, over the anguished protests of liberal Democrats, the White House has offered Republicans visible concessions on pet GOP issues.

“I am pulling out all the stops,” the president conceded.

Why does Clinton want fast-track so desperately?

Analysts offer these answers:

* The measure is essential to maintaining U.S. economic leadership--by enabling Washington to negotiate with other countries to accept more U.S. goods and to help write the rules for the fast-growing global economy.

As Clinton said in his radio address Saturday, the world is on the verge of a second wave of expansion in global markets, and the U.S. wants to be able to help shape the new economic era, as it has in the past.

Because many U.S. trading partners are unwilling to negotiate with the United States without fast-track rules for fear that Congress will rewrite any new accord, defeat of the bill would deprive Washington of any serious say.

With the Cold War over--and economic power now the big factor in determining influence around the world--Congress’ rejection of fast-track could have a serious impact on Clinton’s ability to conduct foreign policy.

While opponents have portrayed the bill as hurting U.S. job growth and the environment, it actually contains the same routine negotiating authority that Congress has granted every president since 1974.

Americans may dismiss such a refusal as inconsequential, but Clinton’s inability to win such authority would raise new doubts abroad, reviving his first-term image as a bumbler on foreign policy issues.

Jeffrey E. Garten, a former Commerce Department trade strategist, says defeat of the trade bill would be “a hammer blow to America’s ability to exert leadership” in the international arena.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright calls approval of the fast-track legislation “one of the most important foreign policy votes” lawmakers will make during Clinton’s term.

* Clinton wants to ensure that U.S. firms have access to emerging markets around the world as a way to keep the domestic economy humming after the current economic expansion begins to wane.

With U.S. companies now so competitive, economists view exporting as one of the primary opportunities that the United States has to sustain the economic boom.

Fast-track procedures are essential for the administration to negotiate market-opening agreements with other countries--the only way to ensure that U.S. exporters reap the same advantages as their competitors.

Although there are no major global trade talks underway now, Europe, Canada and Japan are cutting deals with Asian and Latin American countries that are giving their companies preferred access to those markets.

The fast-track legislation would give Clinton authority to begin broad-scale trade negotiations with the assurance that Congress will vote quickly on approving any new pacts--and will not try to rewrite specific provisions.

While Clinton can begin some trade talks without such authority, he needs the fast-track legislation to negotiate bigger accords, which inevitably involve changes that require congressional approval.

Carole Brookins, chairman of World Perspectives, a trade policy monitoring firm, points out that many of the most lucrative future markets are in countries such as China that have high trade barriers.

“We have a tremendous opportunity to go into these markets,” she said. “But you can’t play in the game if you don’t field a team.”

Policymakers are worried that defeat of fast-track would send a signal to U.S. trading partners that the United States no longer is interested in promoting free trade--likely resulting in adverse consequences worldwide.

Analysts warn that if the United States abandons its advocacy of free trade, it could set off a major plunge in global financial markets that would threaten both newly emerging markets and industrial nations alike.

It also could well spawn a wave of protectionism around the globe, jeopardizing the last few years’ worldwide prosperity and eventually hurting the United States as well--particularly in the fragile East Asian economies.

* Defeat of the fast-track legislation would be a major political embarrassment--and a personal blow to Clinton’s prestige--driving a deeper wedge between the president and House Democrats.

It also would hobble Clinton’s efforts to leave a legacy as a “new Democrat” and to pave the way for Vice President Al Gore to succeed him in the White House. The animosity between Clinton and House Democrats is likely to endure.

To be sure, the fact that such considerations are not well-appreciated around the Capitol is not solely the fault of Congress. As the president himself concedes, he has not done well in making his case for the bill.

During the last several years, Clinton passed up several opportunities to get the bill passed--and he barely has mentioned it in outlining his priorities for the rest of his term.

“Basically, nobody up here was aware that this was really important to him until just this week,” said a senior Democratic lawmaker. “By the time he started making that clear, everyone was locked in to a position.”

Whether there still is time for the president to push the measure into law will be clear when the House votes on the bill, a move scheduled for today. The legislation could still squeak through. Or it may go down in defeat.

But foreign policy analysts say the fact that Clinton is finally showing that he is placing a high priority on the measure should not be a surprise to anyone. The real stunner is why he waited so long to do so.