`FAST TRACK' BID DROPPED FOR '98 CLINTON SEEN AVOIDING AN ELECTION-YEAR BATTLE

WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration will not askCongress this year for "fast track" powers to negotiate tradetreaties, avoiding an election-year fight over an issue that hasdivided the Democratic Party, people following the matter saidyesterday.

"I think it's difficult to expect to pass it this year," saidUS Commerce Secretary William M. Daley. The reasons, he said in aninterview, include a short congressional calendar and the problemof asking lawmakers to take a tough vote in an election year.

Moreover, fast track has been upstaged by a more pressingtrade issue: the economic crisis in Southeast Asia. Administrationofficials are spending their time trying to persuade Congress toapprove more funding for the agency that is helping Asian nationscope with the crisis, the International Monetary Fund."The administration is talking about fast track, but we'rehearing that they don't have any honest intention to submit it toCongress anytime soon," an aide to a House Democratic leader said.Fast track was one of the most contentious political issuesof last year and one of President Clinton's most embarassingcongressional defeats ever.Fast track is a set of special rules that make it easier fora president to negotiate trade deals and harder for Congress toblock them. The powers have been granted to every president sinceGerald Ford, but they lapsed in 1994. Clinton failed in his attemptto renew them, largely because of opposition from House Democrats.After losing the fight last November, Clinton vowed to tryagain. Last month he devoted nearly a page of his eight-page Stateof the Union speech to trade, saying: "I am renewing my request forfast track negotiating authority to open markets and create jobs."But he did not say when he would make that request.While the issue may not come up until 1999 or even later, theClinton adminstration has begun laying the groundwork for a futurepush on fast track.Daley, the commerce secretary, was in Cambridge yesterday aspart of that effort, trying to answer critics of fast track in aspeech at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.He also conceded the administration did not work hard enoughlast year to persuade voters to support fast track. "Friends ofopen trade . . . did not get our message across," Daley said,according to an advanced text of his speech. "We took our messageto the halls of Congress, but we failed to take it to normal peopleacross America. So, members of Congress did not hear from theirconstituents that they needed to vote yes for trade."Separately, Representative Barney Frank, a Newton Democratand leading critic of the 1997 fast track plan, said recent talkswith Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin led him to believe acompromise on fast track could be found.The talks with Rubin occurred last week and included severalDemocratic critics of fast track. The immediate subject wasClinton's request for new funding for the International MonetaryFund, but many IMF critics are the same people who helped kill fasttrack last year, and their complaints about the two proposals aresimilar.Many Democrats say any fast track bill should force UStrading partners to enforce environmental laws and to aid localtrade unions. Otherwise, the Democrats say, US employers would movejobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor and lax pollutionrules.Similarly, Democratic critics of the IMF proposal say that ifUS money is to help bail out Indonesia and other troubled nations,those nations should have to enforce antipollution laws and ease upon their repression of labor unions.While the talks with Rubin did not get into specific languagefor a new fast track bill, Frank was encouraged the administrationtook his concerns seriously. "There's a recognition that these arenot just side issues," Frank said. "Once you have an agreement thatyou're going to get serious about these things, then fast trackwill fall into place."The administration, however, has to be careful that inpleasing House Democrats it does not alienate Republicans, many ofwhom say the US should not make labor and environmental issues partof any free-trade discussions."I don't sense at this point that you've got the publicmoving a tremendous degree, so that you've got the politiciansmoving" to support fast track, Daley said in an interview."We've got a problem here to convince people, normal people,to support this so that the political system responds in a positiveway."

`FAST TRACK' BID DROPPED FOR '98 CLINTON SEEN AVOIDING AN ELECTION-YEAR BATTLE

WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration will not askCongress this year for "fast track" powers to negotiate tradetreaties, avoiding an election-year fight over an issue that hasdivided the Democratic Party, people following the matter saidyesterday.

"I think it's difficult to expect to pass it this year," saidUS Commerce Secretary William M. Daley. The reasons, he said in aninterview, include a short congressional calendar and the problemof asking lawmakers to take a tough vote in an election year.

Moreover, fast track has been upstaged by a more pressingtrade issue: the economic crisis in Southeast Asia. Administrationofficials are spending their time trying to persuade Congress toapprove more funding for the agency that is helping Asian nationscope with the crisis, the International Monetary Fund."The administration is talking about fast track, but we'rehearing that they don't have any honest intention to submit it toCongress anytime soon," an aide to a House Democratic leader said.Fast track was one of the most contentious political issuesof last year and one of President Clinton's most embarassingcongressional defeats ever.Fast track is a set of special rules that make it easier fora president to negotiate trade deals and harder for Congress toblock them. The powers have been granted to every president sinceGerald Ford, but they lapsed in 1994. Clinton failed in his attemptto renew them, largely because of opposition from House Democrats.After losing the fight last November, Clinton vowed to tryagain. Last month he devoted nearly a page of his eight-page Stateof the Union speech to trade, saying: "I am renewing my request forfast track negotiating authority to open markets and create jobs."But he did not say when he would make that request.While the issue may not come up until 1999 or even later, theClinton adminstration has begun laying the groundwork for a futurepush on fast track.Daley, the commerce secretary, was in Cambridge yesterday aspart of that effort, trying to answer critics of fast track in aspeech at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.He also conceded the administration did not work hard enoughlast year to persuade voters to support fast track. "Friends ofopen trade . . . did not get our message across," Daley said,according to an advanced text of his speech. "We took our messageto the halls of Congress, but we failed to take it to normal peopleacross America. So, members of Congress did not hear from theirconstituents that they needed to vote yes for trade."Separately, Representative Barney Frank, a Newton Democratand leading critic of the 1997 fast track plan, said recent talkswith Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin led him to believe acompromise on fast track could be found.The talks with Rubin occurred last week and included severalDemocratic critics of fast track. The immediate subject wasClinton's request for new funding for the International MonetaryFund, but many IMF critics are the same people who helped kill fasttrack last year, and their complaints about the two proposals aresimilar.Many Democrats say any fast track bill should force UStrading partners to enforce environmental laws and to aid localtrade unions. Otherwise, the Democrats say, US employers would movejobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor and lax pollutionrules.Similarly, Democratic critics of the IMF proposal say that ifUS money is to help bail out Indonesia and other troubled nations,those nations should have to enforce antipollution laws and ease upon their repression of labor unions.While the talks with Rubin did not get into specific languagefor a new fast track bill, Frank was encouraged the administrationtook his concerns seriously. "There's a recognition that these arenot just side issues," Frank said. "Once you have an agreement thatyou're going to get serious about these things, then fast trackwill fall into place."The administration, however, has to be careful that inpleasing House Democrats it does not alienate Republicans, many ofwhom say the US should not make labor and environmental issues partof any free-trade discussions."I don't sense at this point that you've got the publicmoving a tremendous degree, so that you've got the politiciansmoving" to support fast track, Daley said in an interview."We've got a problem here to convince people, normal people,to support this so that the political system responds in a positiveway."

`FAST TRACK' BID DROPPED FOR '98 CLINTON SEEN AVOIDING AN ELECTION-YEAR BATTLE

WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration will not askCongress this year for "fast track" powers to negotiate tradetreaties, avoiding an election-year fight over an issue that hasdivided the Democratic Party, people following the matter saidyesterday.

"I think it's difficult to expect to pass it this year," saidUS Commerce Secretary William M. Daley. The reasons, he said in aninterview, include a short congressional calendar and the problemof asking lawmakers to take a tough vote in an election year.

Moreover, fast track has been upstaged by a more pressingtrade issue: the economic crisis in Southeast Asia. Administrationofficials are spending their time trying to persuade Congress toapprove more funding for the agency that is helping Asian nationscope with the crisis, the International Monetary Fund."The administration is talking about fast track, but we'rehearing that they don't have any honest intention to submit it toCongress anytime soon," an aide to a House Democratic leader said.Fast track was one of the most contentious political issuesof last year and one of President Clinton's most embarassingcongressional defeats ever.Fast track is a set of special rules that make it easier fora president to negotiate trade deals and harder for Congress toblock them. The powers have been granted to every president sinceGerald Ford, but they lapsed in 1994. Clinton failed in his attemptto renew them, largely because of opposition from House Democrats.After losing the fight last November, Clinton vowed to tryagain. Last month he devoted nearly a page of his eight-page Stateof the Union speech to trade, saying: "I am renewing my request forfast track negotiating authority to open markets and create jobs."But he did not say when he would make that request.While the issue may not come up until 1999 or even later, theClinton adminstration has begun laying the groundwork for a futurepush on fast track.Daley, the commerce secretary, was in Cambridge yesterday aspart of that effort, trying to answer critics of fast track in aspeech at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.He also conceded the administration did not work hard enoughlast year to persuade voters to support fast track. "Friends ofopen trade . . . did not get our message across," Daley said,according to an advanced text of his speech. "We took our messageto the halls of Congress, but we failed to take it to normal peopleacross America. So, members of Congress did not hear from theirconstituents that they needed to vote yes for trade."Separately, Representative Barney Frank, a Newton Democratand leading critic of the 1997 fast track plan, said recent talkswith Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin led him to believe acompromise on fast track could be found.The talks with Rubin occurred last week and included severalDemocratic critics of fast track. The immediate subject wasClinton's request for new funding for the International MonetaryFund, but many IMF critics are the same people who helped kill fasttrack last year, and their complaints about the two proposals aresimilar.Many Democrats say any fast track bill should force UStrading partners to enforce environmental laws and to aid localtrade unions. Otherwise, the Democrats say, US employers would movejobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor and lax pollutionrules.Similarly, Democratic critics of the IMF proposal say that ifUS money is to help bail out Indonesia and other troubled nations,those nations should have to enforce antipollution laws and ease upon their repression of labor unions.While the talks with Rubin did not get into specific languagefor a new fast track bill, Frank was encouraged the administrationtook his concerns seriously. "There's a recognition that these arenot just side issues," Frank said. "Once you have an agreement thatyou're going to get serious about these things, then fast trackwill fall into place."The administration, however, has to be careful that inpleasing House Democrats it does not alienate Republicans, many ofwhom say the US should not make labor and environmental issues partof any free-trade discussions."I don't sense at this point that you've got the publicmoving a tremendous degree, so that you've got the politiciansmoving" to support fast track, Daley said in an interview."We've got a problem here to convince people, normal people,to support this so that the political system responds in a positiveway."