For Lawmaker, Trade Bill Leads to Trade-Offs

Her working-class ties are blood strong. Her father was a truck-driving Teamster. Her mother was a secretary in the Oakland machinists union.

“My dad’s father was a Teamster when they still had horses,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose).

But the second-term congresswoman is also an ardent champion of free trade. She represents a big swath of ultra-high-tech Silicon Valley. The area owes much of its growth to exports.

Like perhaps no other member of Congress, Lofgren has been torn by the House vote on President Clinton’s request for enhanced authority to negotiate trade agreements.

With labor vehemently opposed to the “fast-track” bill, and Silicon Valley businesses staunchly supporting it, Lofgren was unable to make up her mind until Sunday evening as the White House and GOP congressional leaders searched for votes in anticipation of a floor vote, which was later postponed.

In the end, a weary Lofgren sided with Clinton--and against her own father and organized labor.

“I had somebody in the labor movement tell me that I should be with them . . . because for once, they ought to win one,” Lofgren said Sunday night.

“I do at this very moment feel very bad about that. I think, on balance, the better vote is what I’m going to do. But I feel badly that they’re not going to feel valued. And they should feel valued. That’s why it’s hard,” she said. “This kind of winner-takes-all measure is so destructive for people’s sense of self-worth. I’m just sorry it’s played out in this manner.”

Lofgren, 49, said the vote she intends to cast in support of fast-track is perhaps the most difficult she has ever faced--rivaling her vote against Clinton on the deployment of U.S. troops in Bosnia.

In the end, Lofgren said, she was persuaded by the president’s personal written assurances that his administration would assiduously pursue with trade partners an array of labor and environmental safeguards.

*

The “Dear Zoe” letter she received from Clinton was delivered to Lofgren’s third-floor office, just across from the Capitol, at 3 p.m. Sunday. Only then did she reach her decision.

“It’s not a perfect measure. If I were writing it, I wouldn’t have put the limitation on negotiating improvements on labor and environment,” Lofgren said. “But compared to the U.S. not being at the table when international trade agreements are negotiated, I think that would be a very serious problem.”

As she prepared to reluctantly cast her vote with Clinton, she said a prayer.

“Neither side was all right or all wrong,” she said. “I hope and pray that the decision being made is the best for our country and our people.”

Such thoughtfulness has been a Lofgren trademark since her election to the House in 1994, when Republicans took control of Congress. She was the only freshman Democrat to be elected from west of the Rockies.

Her district now is the most heavily Latino district in the San Francisco Bay area (about 37%), but it also has a strong Asian presence (about 20%).

A onetime farm-market town that teemed with canneries and fruit-packing operations, San Jose is still sustained by agriculture, although manufacturing and high-tech industries increasingly are pushing the community full-speed into the 21st century.

Although Lofgren doesn’t hesitate to distance herself from liberal dogma, she has tangled repeatedly with Republicans, displaying a talent for scoring debating points.

During a truncated debate in 1995 on a GOP-proposed constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget, Lofgren remarked: “You know, as a [former] member of the board of supervisors of Santa Clara County, I’m mindful we spent more time analyzing the impact of a use permit for a golf course than this body has spent analyzing the impact of this amendment.”

And when the Republican majority sought more constitutional amendments--on congressional term limits and flag desecration--Lofgren said: “Real conservatives do not try to amend the Constitution three times in six months.”

None of the amendments passed congressional muster.

Lofgren began immersing herself in the fast-track controversy in June, reading piles of position papers and books on the matter.

*

She engaged in Socratic-style conversation with proponents and opponents of the bill, pushing them to defend, justify and, above all, back up their assertions.

“I would talk to the opponents, and I would be, like, making the case for the proponents. When I talked to the proponents, I’d make the case for the opponents. I was trying to elicit the best-case arguments,” she recalled.

An epiphany occurred a few nights ago during a telephone conversation with a longtime friend and union official in Santa Clara. She detected that he sounded less than certain about labor’s strong opposition to the fast-track bill.

As Lofgren recalled the discussion, it went something like this:

“Well, you know we could be wrong . . . ,” he confided.

“Yeah, maybe,” she replied, leading him on.

”. . . because things are going great. This economy is great. And everybody is at work, and wages are going up,” the union official went on.

Until then, Lofgren had been leaning toward a “no” vote.

As it turned out, she wasn’t the only Lofgren who remained a fast-track fence-sitter until the final hours. Until Saturday night, so was her father, Milt.

“I know it’ll be for the best, whatever you decide,” her father had told her just a few days earlier.

By Saturday night, however, he sang a different tune.

“Hell, I think you should vote against it,” he told her. “It’s complicated, but you ought to just stand by labor because they’re against it.”

But by then, Rep. Lofgren was leaning toward a yes vote. So she asked him: “What if I reach a different conclusion?”

He replied, “Well, I’ll love ya.”