Thursday's vote to open debate on fast-track trade legislation was proof that when he wants something bad enough, President Obama will use the bully pulpit, the telephone and a good deal of arm-twisting to get it. He got a stinging rebuke on Tuesday when all but one Senate Democrat voted against ending a filibuster against fast-tracking, formally known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). But as free-trade foes were celebrating their victory defeating the cloture motion, the president was not off in some corner licking his wounds. He was instead engaged in what participants said was a
persuasive 90-minute talk with 10 pro-trade Democrats. Came Thursday and it was he in victory seat.
With the crucial procedural vote now behind it, the Senate will take up the substance of fast-track legislation next week, hoping to hold a vote before the long Memorial Day recess. If TPA passes the Senate, upon the reconvening of Congress in June, it will be the turn of the House, where Democratic opposition to fast-tracking is stronger, and some tea party Republicans are also opposed. Progressive foes of TPA, such as Lori Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch at Public Citizen, have said all along that the real fight will be in the House.
The TPA legislation would authorize the president to complete negotiations on trade deals, including the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, an agreement with the European Union. Once a trade agreement is completed, Congress members would get a chance to review the pact and vote it up or down. They would not be allowed to make amendments, which backers say could undermine negotiations and foes say the lack of undermines democracy.
You can read more on this below the fold.
Up to now, from the committee room to the Senate floor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker of Tennessee, ranking committee Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have kept a tight lid on how many amendments to the legislation have been allowed. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, an avid free trader, has helped that effort by negotiating amendment maneuvers with Republicans.
The success of the second cloture vote Thursday was dependent on allowing separate votes on two key matters for Democrats: enforcing curbs on currency manipulation and African trade preferences. Not including these in a package deal along with a third bill on transition assistance for American workers hurt by trade deals was a major factor in the failure of the Tuesday cloture vote on TPA. Many Senate Democrats still want to roll those two bills into the fast-track legislation itself and presumably will try to amend it in that manner. A crucial reason for considering all these matters together is that opponents of the legislation fear House Republicans might pass TPA but reject the stand-alone currency manipulation bill.
Having witnessed the damage previous trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Act have contributed to, labor unions have been adamant in their opposition to fast-tracking. But with amendments, they might be willing to bend:
“This will be a very, very major vote on the scorecard,” AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka said Thursday in a discussion with Washington Post reporters and editors. “It means so much to working people that, on this one, if you are against us, you are against us.” [...]
Trumka decried the move to separate the currency provisions from the fast-track deal. Those provisions could lead to the imposition of punitive duties on goods imported from countries found to be depressing the value of their currencies.
“What do you think happens to it when it gets to the House? It’s DOA,” he said. “Unless it all goes together, it’s not going to work and we’re not going to be for it, and we’re going to be hard-edged about it.”
Good to hear.
But if the currency-related legislation were to be included in TPA legislation that the Senate passes, that could turn out in the House to be one of those "poison pills" we've heard so much about. Certainly President Obama is not down with the idea:
The White House said in a statement that the currency manipulation language passed in the separate bill “would undermine our international efforts to address this issue, raise highly problematic questions about consistency with our international obligations, lead to other countries pursuing retaliatory measures that could hurt our exporters, and be difficult to administer.” Obama said Thursday that the provision could have a “blowback effect on our ability to have our own monetary policy.”
It will be an interesting week.