By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 1997; Page A16

A compromise over national school testing negotiated by House and Senate leaders and appropriators crumbled yesterday after encountering powerful resistance from conservative Republicans and other critics of testing.

The proposal, drafted by Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) and blessed by House and Senate GOP leaders Wednesday evening, sought to end a prolonged impasse by allowing the Clinton administration to proceed with its plans to develop national educational tests for reading and math, while giving Congress final say over whether the tests will actually be administered.

But the plan drew sharp criticism from the White House almost immediately and sparked an uproar yesterday among House conservatives who charged House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and other leaders with selling them out on an important issue in a rush to resolve the dispute and avert a showdown with the administration.

"This is, I think, the low point in the leadership," declared Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a leader of a group of conservative House members who participated in a failed effort to unseat Gingrich as speaker this summer. "This was a winning case [for opponents] and the `lawyer' dropped the ball, and after a while you have to change the `lawyer.' "

Gingrich, House Republican Conference Chairman John A. Boehner (Ohio) and other House GOP leaders almost immediately began to distance themselves from the compromise plan and signaled during a leadership meeting that the compromise language was subject to change before the House and Senate vote on the final version of the spending legislation – probably some time next week.

"This isn't over till it's over," said Christina Martin, Gingrich's press secretary. "This language is still to be worked out in conference and this may evolve more."

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston (R-La.), stunned by the turnabout and Gingrich's criticism of his handling of the issue, stormed out of the leadership meeting and slammed the door. The turmoil forced leaders to reopen negotiations and call an emergency meeting of House Republicans today.

President Clinton has made national testing a top priority of his second term, but many Republicans and some Democrats are deeply suspicious of a plan that would give the federal government a larger role in shaping the curriculum of local schools.

The House has voted overwhelmingly to block spending for development of a national test for reading and math, but a Senate-passed measure would permit the tests to be developed by the National Assessment Governing Board, an independent, bipartisan agency.

Livingston, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Obey and others argued yesterday during a meeting of conferees that the compromise they were offering was the last best hope for resolving the dispute this year and passing the underlying $269 billion labor-health-education spending bill.

But Rep. William F. Goodling (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee and a leading opponent of national testing, dismissed the compromise as a "slap in the face" to the 295 House members who oppose national testing.

Other matters holding up spending bills this year appeared headed toward resolution. The administration and Republican leaders were coming closer to making a deal on how the 2000 census would be conducted. Both sides have been at odds over whether to allow sampling techniques in the decennial census, as opposed to the traditional method of attempting to visit each household. Under a tentative deal the Commerce Department would have funding to develop sampling techniques, and to carry out a "dress rehearsal" of the 2000 census during 1998.

Republicans appeared to be pursuing a veto strategy on the measure containing the federal government's payment to the District of Columbia but planned to quickly send the bill back to the White House without a school voucher provision opposed by the administration.

That would leave only the perennial question of funding international family planning programs in the foreign aid bill. While Livingston hoped for a deal that would allow the bill to be signed into law, officials were also preparing for a veto. In that case, the expectation is that the bill would go back without the provision.

Staff writer John E. Yang contributed to this report.