A trade-authority measure that has garnered criticism from Democrats is now picking up potential opposition on the Republican right — a sign that it may be tougher than expected to pass the legislation.
House Republican conservatives tell the Washington Examiner they are hesitant to approve a bill that would give President Obama expedited authority to authorize trade deals. But in particular they don’t want Obama to wield so-called Fast Track authority for trade agreements because of his use of executive authority, including a recent move to allow millions of illegal immigrants to obtain work permits.
“I’m for free trade, and ordinarily I’d be for free trade for a president,” Rep. John Fleming, R-La., told the Washington Examiner. “But this president is quite unique in history, that he loves to do things that are extra-constitutional. And so if you give him broad authority, you don’t know where that limit’s going to be.”
Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., said he has not decided whether to support the deal, which has been endorsed and promoted not only by Obama, but also the GOP leadership and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Ryan gave conservatives a closed-door pep talk on the proposal this week.
“I am always hesitant about giving this president more power, based on the results today and how frequently he has abused the power he has been given,” Brooks told the Examiner.
Earlier Wednesday, a leading House conservative, Rep. Raúl Labrador, said he won’t vote for the Fast Track bill.
“We shouldn’t give this president this trade authority,” Labrador said at a gathering of conservative lawmakers. “I don’t agree with that.”
Conservative angst over the proposal comes as Democrats appear to be solidifying their opposition, creating a rift with Obama.
Obama, Republican leaders and other proponents of the deal say it will make it easier for the president to speedily approve trade deals that will benefit the U.S. economy allowing more commerce with other nations. Republicans have tried to sell the proposal to conservatives by promoting trade deal parameters they could set within the legislation.
But so far the coalition of Republicans and Democrats that will be needed to pass the legislation remains shaky.
Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and his top lieutenant Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.,have both signaled they won’t back the plan as written, as has Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a liberal icon in the upper chamber.
“It puts us at a disadvantage,” Reid said. “So the answer is not only no, but hell no. OK?”
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., registered his opposition to the proposal with a parliamentary move on Wednesday that delayed a senate committee’s endorsement of the bill for an entire afternoon.
In the House, it was hard to find a Democratic “yes” vote in a sea of opposition, much of it from members who told the Examiner they felt burned by the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she would not back the GOP proposal, but instead gave her endorsement to a measure authored by Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., that would add restrictions, including a requirement that bipartisan groups of House and Senate trade advisors green light any expedited trade deal.
Democrats told the Examiner they are determined to endorse another deal like NAFTA.
The deal was promoted by then-President Clinton, who signed it into law. Critics, particularly Democrats from industrial states and labor unions, believe NAFTA led to catastrophic job loss and a massive trade deficit.
“I’m opposed to it,” Rep. José Serrano said. “None of these deals ever turn out the way we were told they would. Starting with NAFTA.”
Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., said Democrats will work to make changes to the legislation to prevent a NAFTA repeat.
“There is not really a big difference with what we did in the past, and now,” Pascrell said of the current proposal. “We want a big difference, we are going to bring that out in our markup. Tell the president that.”
