Clinton to Prod Balky Democrats to Back His ‘Fast Track’ Trade Bill

President Clinton’s controversial “fast track” trade bill is heading for a crossroads this week, and how it emerges will determine whether Congress will vote on the measure this year or push it to 1998, and possibly kill it.

Clinton is expected to do some personal arm-twisting of balky Democrats to support the bill, one of his legislative priorities for 1997, despite a threat by labor to work against all backers of the bill in next year’s congressional election.

He plans to tout the bill, which would require Congress to vote international trade agreements up or down without the opportunity to amend them, in a speech today to the Democratic Leadership Council. And he will be on the telephone to lawmakers all week.

Administration officials hope that passage of the bill in the Senate will provide the momentum they need to win enough support in the House for a floor vote sometime before Nov. 7, when Congress hopes to adjourn for the year.

*

But with the Senate tentatively slated to take up the measure Thursday, proponents say they are still not sure they will have the 60 votes needed to block an expected Democratic filibuster.

The fast-track bill is also bumping against Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle’s threat to block all floor action if Republicans refuse to vote on campaign finance reform legislation. Insiders say Clinton may be prepared to assure the South Dakota Democrat that he will keep Congress in session past Nov. 7 to tackle campaign finance reform if Daschle agrees not to block a fast-track vote.

In the House, where Republican support for Clinton’s bill is generally lukewarm, GOP leaders do not want to bear the full brunt of labor’s wrath for supporting fast-track. They have said they will not even schedule the bill for floor action unless Clinton can muster at least 70 of the House’s 206 Democrats to support it. So far, only about 40 have agreed.

All sides agree that if the administration cannot win passage of the bill by adjournment, it will face even tougher going in 1998, when most lawmakers will be embroiled in their reelection campaigns.

*

The fast-track bill authorizes Clinton to begin trade talks in several areas, but Congress would agree to limit itself to taking up-or-down votes on any new trade pacts without trying to rewrite the specifics.

Clinton argues that he needs fast-track authority to launch negotiations to reduce trade barriers abroad. The procedure, which had been in force under presidents of both parties from 1974 to 1994, is designed to assure foreign governments that any trade accords they negotiate will not be reopened by Congress.

Several of America’s major trading partners have indicated that they will not begin trade negotiations without such a guarantee. Only the U.S. system of government, they say, allows lawmakers to override such deals.

The most immediate set of talks planned by the administration would add Chile to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which now consists of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Clinton eventually wants to bring in several other Latin American countries as well. Moreover, U.S. negotiators want authority to complete global talks on trade in agriculture and financial services.

Opponents insist that fast-track authority should be denied unless Clinton is willing to include provisions in new trade deals that would force other countries to adhere to stricter labor and environmental standards.

The White House, which contends that this would only discourage other countries from negotiating trade agreements, wants labor and environmental issues handled separately.

The opponents also have charged that NAFTA has resulted in an exodus of jobs from the United States to Mexico, where wages are lower. U.S. officials, and most economists, contend that any job loss has been negligible.

*

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer (R-Texas), an ardent supporter of the fast-track bill, concedes that, partly because of uncertain support from the president’s own party, the outlook in the House is dicey.

Asked Saturday on CNN’s “Evans & Novak” program to assess the bill’s chances, Archer said: “I don’t think you can give it a yes-or-no answer. It’s very, very close right now. If the president can produce the 70 Democrat votes, it’ll pass.”