Democrats split over China trade vote

WASHINGTON - The agenda will include prescription drug legislation when President Clinton welcomes Democratic lawmakers to the White House on Thursday. The subtext will be party unity, in short supply in the brutal struggle over China trade legislation.

With Clinton pushing for the China measure in the waning months of his administration and organized labor determined to defeat it, the Democratic rank and file split, predictably and publicly.

The last time that happened - the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 - was prelude to the elections that ended 40 years of Democratic control of the House.

''It's going to sting for awhile,'' said Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., who chairs the party's campaign committee. ''My hope is that with the passage of time they (organized labor) will come to see the bigger picture,'' he said, ''and decide it's not worth them making this a cause for separation, let alone divorce.''

Republicans hope otherwise.

''It's a huge win, because we think it puts their party at peril,'' both in the battle for control of the House this fall and the campaign for the White House, said Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.

''There is a certain amount of glee when we are able to put a policy issue on the floor'' that divides Democrats, he said. Republicans, he noted, are often on the other end of that sort of thing - listening to Democratic leader Dick Gephardt demand passage of legislation dealing with HMOs, the minimum wage or prescription drugs that tend to cause splits within the GOP ranks.

With the House narrowly divided along party lines - Democrats need to switch six seats in the fall to gain a majority - Clinton, Gephardt and Bonior should have no trouble putting China behind and refocusing their attention on the poll-tested issues that divide Republicans.

But that leaves open the question of organized labor, whose support is vital if Al Gore is to win the White House and Gephardt succeed in his drive to become speaker next fall.

On Tuesday, the head of the United AutoWorkers Union, Stephen Yokich, issued a statement suggesting that Green party candidate Ralph Nader might be preferable to Gore.

As for the House, vows Teamster spokesman Bret Caldwell, ''This electoral cycle there will be no free passes. We will reassess our support of any candidate who votes'' in favor of the China trade measure.

The legislation would grant China permanent normal trade relations. Supporters said the bill would open vast markets to U.S. companies and help promote democratic change by exporting American values. Opponents - including the religious right and a coalition of environmental, human rights and veterans organizations in addition to labor - asserted it would reward a brutal regime and result in a loss of domestic jobs.

The measure cleared on a bipartisan vote of 237-197. Among Democrats, there were 73 votes in favor and 138 opposed.

Apart from the Teamsters, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney threw himself into the effort to defeat the China measure, and the effort has struck sparks among some Democrats who are loyal supporters of labor's agenda.

There was a contentious meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus last week, and Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., an elder in the group, publicly questioned the wisdom of organized labor's effort.

''It is very difficult for me to understand why, at this time and this place, the unions have decided to make this a litmus test,'' he said, adding that the union's pressure tactics were ''very threatening.''

''I hope not. I hope we're not being hard on anybody,'' countered Sweeney.

Others weren't so sure, though.

''This business of threats and intimidation over one vote, no matter whence it comes, is not very constructive,'' said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., a supporter of the bill.

There's an ''undercurrent of a backlash developing,'' he said.

Gephardt, who has labored more than five years to unite an unwieldy Democratic caucus, sought to remain publicly aloof from the China struggle. Opposed to the bill, he decided that minimizing internal divisions was more important than joining Bonior in the campaign to derail the legislation.

''I can't drop everything else that I do here to work on one issue,'' he told reporters recently. ''I have a wide-ranging job that encompasses a lot of issues and a lot of activities.''

He stepped in on one occasion last week, though, when it appeared that Clinton would make a nationally televised address to seek support for the measure. Several Democratic officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Gephardt called the White House and personally told Clinton he would deliver the formal response to any presidential speech.

That raised the politically unappealing prospect of very public divisions on the issue, and the speech was scrubbed.