A group of bipartisan lawmakers announced legislation Thursday to give the president Trade Promotion Authority, which the Obama administration wants Congress to pass before it submits any trade deals to Capitol Hill.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the committee’s ranking Democrat, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., announced the legislation. Also known as “Fast Track,” it would prohibit Congress from amending trade deals, limiting lawmakers to a simple up or down vote.
“The renewal of TPA will help American workers and job creators unlock new opportunities for growth and promote better, higher-paying jobs here at home,” Hatch said.
That Wyden was one of the co-sponsors was a good sign for the administration. Anti-trade activists had tried to pressure the Oregon Democrat, widely seen as one of the crucial swing votes on the issue, to oppose the legislation.
“Opening foreign markets, where most of the world’s consumers reside, is critical to creating new opportunities for middle-class American jobs. This bill, together with strong new enforcement tools, Trade Adjustment Assistance and the Health Coverage Tax Credit, sets our country on the right track to craft trade policies that work for more people,” Wyden said.
He argued the legislation would ensure that future trade deals “break new ground” protecting human rights, labor and the environment.
The legislation represents a rare area of agreement between the Republican leadership and Obama and therefore is seen as having good chances for passage. However, many liberal Democrats and some conservative Republicans are opposed.
Critics of Obama’s trade agenda hope to rally that opposition to derail the legislation. Organized labor is targeting wavering Democrats, while anti-immigration activists have decided to join the fray and rally Republican opposition.
On Thursday, the AFL-CIO announced that it will start a “six-figure” ad campaign to derail Trade Promotion Authority. The labor federation is targeting 16 senators and 36 House members. A spokesman declined to list the targets, but an example of one of the ads provided by the group featured Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., as its target.
“We can’t afford to pass Fast Track, which would lead to more lost jobs and lower wages. We want Congress to keep its leverage over trade negotiations — not rubber stamp a deal that delivers profits for global corporations, but not good jobs for working people,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.
On Tuesday, the conservative group NumbersUSA, which favors immigration restriction, wrote in a letter to members of Congress that it would score a vote for Fast Track as a vote in favor of more immigration. The group cited the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation deal the administration is expected to bring before Congress later this year, as the reason why. It cited reports that the deal would allow the president to expand guest worker programs without congressional authority.
“It is indefensible that Congress would now consider surrendering even more of its authority over immigration to this president in order to fast track a trade agreement that will harm American workers, and the text of which Congress has not even seen. Therefore, NumbersUSA will score a vote for TPA as a vote for continued executive overreach and a vote against American workers,” the group wrote.
NumbersUSA did not shy away from the fact that that trade opposition puts it on the same side of the issue as liberal groups. A posting on its website is titled, “We Join Unions, Environmentalists and More in Broad Coalition against Threat of Anti-Workers Trade Bill.”
The two sides are not coordinating their efforts. AFL-CIO spokesman Sean Savett said there had been no communication or outreach between them and NumbersUSA. A spokesman for the immigration restriction group said they may try outreach in the future.
Fast Track is widely seen as crucial to Obama’s trade agenda. Without it, Congress could amend the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the administration says would undermine the deal it negotiated. Administration officials also argue they need the authority for future negotiations. Otherwise, they would not be able to assure foreign leaders that any deals they strike will remain unchanged.
