‘Fast-Track’ Trade Bill Gains Steam With Panel’s Vote

President Clinton’s controversial “fast-track” trade bill cleared a key hurdle in Congress on Wednesday, bolstering chances for passage despite opposition by labor, environmentalists and GOP conservatives.

On a voice vote reflecting bipartisan support, the Senate Finance Committee formally approved a bill that essentially parallels the one that Clinton sent Congress, paving the way for floor action in that chamber later this month.

The lopsided vote, with little dissent, is expected to provide political cover for more senators to support the bill, which would strengthen Clinton’s hand in negotiating trade pacts.

Prospects for the legislation are less certain in the House, where work on it is scheduled to begin sometime next week.

Administration officials immediately hailed the Finance Committee action as a turning-point. Charlene Barshefsky, the U.S. trade representative, called it “a major step forward” in the fight for the measure.

Republicans have been pressing Clinton to take a personal hand in rallying support for the bill, contending that it could be defeated unless GOP lawmakers can be assured that Democrats will back it as well.

The legislation would provide new authority for the administration to begin trade talks with a number of U.S. trading partners, including efforts to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement to Chile.

To protect such negotiations once they are completed, however, the measure would require Congress to set a quick up-or-down vote on any new trade accords and not try to reopen bargaining on specific provisions.

Wednesday’s committee action came as the White House announced that it will seek new talks with South Korea in an effort to convince Seoul to eliminate barriers to the sale of U.S.-made automobiles.

Although officials here denied it, the move was seen mainly as an effort to persuade Congress that the administration is aggressively enforcing existing trade accords, in hopes of bolstering support for fast-track.

Wednesday’s action by the Finance Committee marked the first formal test in Congress for the controversial fast-track legislation.

Officials said that Clinton is expected to make a personal push for enactment of the measure but that he probably will wait until late this month, when the House is most likely to consider the bill. Support among House Democrats has been weak.

The Finance Committee measure, like Clinton’s, would reject demands by unions and conservation groups that any new trade accords contain strict labor and environmental standards for other countries to follow.

Instead, the legislation provides that only those labor and environmental provisions needed to carry out the trade agreements could be included in the accords subject to fast-track procedures.

If U.S. officials wanted to negotiate broader labor or environmental agreements, they would have to do so separately and could not enforce them by imposing economic sanctions, as they could with violations of trade pacts.

Labor and environmental groups contend that, unless such provisions are included in the main body of new trade accords, they cannot be enforced properly and are virtually meaningless.

The fast-track legislation also is opposed by some GOP conservatives, who argue that it would provide the president with too much authority and deprive Congress of its power to share in trade policy decisions.

To address that issue, the bill contains provisions that would require Clinton to consult with members of Congress throughout the negotiations on any new trade accords, rather than waiting until the talks are complete.

All U.S. presidents have had such fast-track authority since 1974 but Clinton allowed his to lapse four years ago and has not sought to renew it until recently.

Administration officials say that the fast-track authority is needed to guarantee other countries that Congress will not try to renegotiate a trade accord on the House or Senate floor after U.S. officials have agreed to it.

Several U.S. trading partners have refused to begin trade talks with the United States until the fast-track authority has been renewed. Meanwhile, U.S. competitors--such as Europe--have been moving in to fill the void.

Labor and environmental groups have complained that the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico--negotiated under fast-track procedures and in force since early 1994--has hurt U.S. workers.

That view is disputed, however, by the administration and by most economists, who argue that the pact has bolstered trade among all three countries and kept Mexico on a free-market path.

The move announced by the administration to seek new talks with South Korea did little more than buy time for the two sides to work out their differences.

It was unclear whether Washington would impose sanctions if Seoul does not reduce restrictions on imports of U.S.-made automobiles. Under current procedures, the two sides have 12 months to reach an accord.

At the same time, the administration rejected an appeal by the Big Three auto makers to take similar action against Japan. U.S. officials said they believe that Japan is buying more U.S. auto parts but vehicle sales are slow.

Besides the auto case, Barshefsky’s office announced that it would file formal complaints with the Geneva-based World Trade Organization on trade practices of four other countries.

The cases include Japanese restrictions on U.S. fruit exports; Canadian export subsidies and import quotas on milk; European refusal to end dairy subsidies and Australian export subsidies on automotive leather.

In all four instances, the WTO is expected to take several months to issue a ruling. If the organization finds in favor of the United States, the administration can impose sanctions against the countries involved.

Also on Wednesday, the Senate passed and sent to the White House a $25-billion annual Treasury spending bill that expressly bans U.S. import of products made by forced child labor.

The measure extends a 1930 tariff law that bars goods made with indentured or convict labor to ensure that it covers children in bonded labor situations. Child labor activists estimate that up to $100 million worth of merchandise produced by forced child labor, such as carpets and woven goods, enters the United States each year.