Gore’s Balancing Act Over China Trade Bill Has Risks

Seven years ago, when Democrats were split over a major trade accord with Mexico and Canada, no one wondered where Al Gore stood. The vice president gave a bravura pro-trade performance in a televised debate with Ross Perot, helping pave the way for passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Now, as Congress nears a vote on the most important trade measure since NAFTA, Gore’s profile is more ambiguous. Labor foes of a new trade agreement with China complain that Gore is lobbying too hard for the deal. But his role has been so low-key that some of the deal’s proponents say he is not lobbying hard enough.

With House action looming next week, some of those backing the agreement are urging Gore to be more aggressive in selling it to lawmakers and the public. The risk, of course, would be more ire among the top union officials who are key supporters of Gore’s presidential bid.

But a heightened stance on the China trade deal also could give Gore an opportunity to demonstrate political independence from organized labor--much as Bill Clinton in 1992 benefited from distancing himself from traditional Democratic constituencies when he rebuked rap singer Sister Souljah.

“This would be a good opportunity for him to distinguish his position on this issue,” said Sen. John B. Breaux of Louisiana, a centrist Democrat who supports the China deal. “He could be doing more. He’s tiptoeing through a minefield right now.”

Gore’s awkward position in the China debate reflects more than just immediate political pressures. It also offers a preview of tensions he likely would face as president if he wins in November: Trade is an issue that splits the Democratic Party asunder, and it is an issue that will only grow in importance.

“He’s in a tough spot,” said Will Marshall, head of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist research group. “He’s in the position of trying to straddle one of the toughest fault lines in the party.”

Trade Is Tougher Issue These Days

President Clinton has managed to navigate that schism and steer firmly down a free-trade course. But a variety of factors make the going rougher for Gore.

Trade is now a more prominent issue--and a higher priority for labor--than when Clinton was first elected. Also, unions are more important to Gore’s presidential campaign than they were to Clinton’s. Unions backed the then-Arkansas governor only after he had already emerged as his party’s presidential front-runner. For Gore, the endorsement of the AFL-CIO last fall was crucial, helping rejuvenate a campaign foundering under the challenge posed by former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey.

Gore aides say he remains as committed to free trade as ever and has been active in pushing the China deal, even though it puts him at odds with labor.

“He has consistently supported the concept of free trade as good for the economy,” said Chris Lehane, Gore’s campaign spokesman. “It’s not necessarily a political calculation. It is fundamentally where he is on the issue.”

But some free-trade advocates worry that Gore’s dependence on labor will ultimately make him a less steady hand on the free-trade tiller than Clinton. “The vice president may have tilted farther in labor’s direction on substantive issues than was necessary or wise,” said a Democrat close to Gore.

The issue now before Congress is whether to permanently grant China normal trading status (currently, this designation is reviewed annually by Congress). The administration argues such status is essential to give U.S. business the benefits of China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. But critics say changing China’s trade status would undercut the ability of the United States to pressure China on labor rights, environmental protection and human rights.

The House vote on the issue hinges on a handful of undecided members, and each side in the debate is intensifying its arm-twisting.

Although Gore has not been a leader in the administration’s lobbying, he has increased his efforts of late. He appeared last week with Clinton at a White House ceremony where former presidents Ford and Carter touted the deal. He has made a point of promoting the agreement in recent campaign speeches. And he has called some fence-sitting House members, with mixed results.

Gore phoned a fellow Tennessean, Democratic Rep. Bob Clement, tracking him down in Puerto Rico. But Clement was not swayed and later announced his opposition to the China measure. Gore also talked once to Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), an influential lawmaker who Tuesday announced his support for the deal.

“He didn’t say anything exciting,” Rangel said. Clinton was another story; he badgered Rangel at least four times. “God knows the president has called,” Rangel said.

Many Democratic supporters of the trade bill say Gore’s more limited role is not surprising. “I don’t think it is right to expect him to have the time to do a lot of lobbying,” said Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.).

But Republicans supporting the legislation wanted a more visible show of support.

“I wish Al Gore would be half as active as President Clinton has been,” said Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas), who has been working with the administration on the issue. “The vice president is trying to have it both ways.”

Some Democrats privately express frustration with what they see as Gore’s mixed message, pointing to his meeting with labor leaders in March, when he indicated he would have negotiated the China deal differently if he were president.

This, in turn, has raised concerns about his commitment to the agenda of moderate Democrats, which includes international engagement and an aggressive trade policy.

“There is a desire that he be more active to get [the China deal] passed,” said a senior House strategist.

Gore’s attempt at a balancing act is taking a toll on relations among him, fellow Democrats and organized labor. Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) issued a blistering statement criticizing unions for applying a double standard--and Gore for allowing them to do so.

“Organized labor is soft-pedaling its criticism of Gore, even though he is publicly backing President Clinton’s support for [normal trade relations with] China,” said Obey, who opposes the deal. “But at the same time, labor has been running ads making life miserable for Democratic House members who are taking the same position as Gore.”

Steelworkers Criticize Gore

Not all labor leaders are giving Gore a pass. Officials of the United Steelworkers of America have criticized him for lobbying too hard on the China measure after having led union leaders to believe that his views on trade would be more supportive of labor rights than Clinton’s.

“We have very serious concern about the visibility of the vice president in this,” said Gary Hubbard, the steelworkers’ spokesman. “This could be a very serious political problem.”

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney is less concerned--in part because he does not agree that Gore has been particularly active in lobbying. “He’s been pretty preoccupied with his campaign. I haven’t seen much indication of his lobbying.”

Sweeney said AFL-CIO leaders were well aware of Gore’s trade views when they endorsed him. But they were encouraged by his statements that as president he would insist on including labor and environmental standards in future trade agreements, which has not been the case under Clinton.

That’s exactly the kind of shift in trade policy that worries some advocates of increased trade.

“When you make unequivocal statements that you’re going to insist on labor and environmental standards within trade agreements, that [serves] to raise the bar to a very high level,” said one Gore ally. “If taken seriously, we’re not going to have any further progress on trade.”