1- In May, the Senate passed TAA+TPA as one package and with only 3 votes to spare on cloture (5 Republicans voted no). TAA is Trade Adjustment Assistance, aid for workers displaced by trade. TPA is Trade Promotion Authority, fast track authority that 1- allows the president to negotiate international trade agreements over the next 6 years with only symbolic input from Congress and 2- guarantees the president an up-or-down vote -- no amendments -- on any agreement presented by him/her to Congress (hence why it's called "fast track").
2- Most of the 14 Senate Democrats who supported the package made clear that their support was contingent on inclusion of TAA.
3- Further, some Senate Democrats (e.g. Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray) voted for the package because Mitch McConnell promised them an imminent vote to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank (a different trade issue), whose charter expires at the end of this month. Having gotten their votes on the trade bills, McConnell reneged and no stand-alone vote on ExIm has since been scheduled.
4- Having passed the Senate, albeit with difficulty, the Obama Administration and House Republicans struggled to secure votes on fast track authority. Among liberals there is deep-seated opposition to NAFTA-style trade agreements and distrust of President Obama's corporatist tendencies (see Treasury, U.S.). Among conservatives, there is equally strong or stronger opposition to and distrust of President Obama (period). Thus, the decision was made to split TAA and TPA into two separate votes. Then, the Rule would combine them back into a single package ready for the president to sign without having to go back to the Senate.
(Traditionally, liberals have liked TAA and conservatives have liked TPA, so the hope was each group would vote for its bill and claim plausible deniability about the final package when it came time to explaining to constituents. When President Obama met with House Democrats before the vote and urged them to "play it straight," he meant, vote for TAA as you always have and just pretend that doing so isn't a de facto vote for fast track this time. One could quibble that that would only be considered "playing it straight" in Washington...)
Additionally, under this deal, the House would vote on a 3rd bill ("customs bill") that would modify both the TAA piece and the TPA piece after they became law. Liberals object that the TAA bill is paid for with Medicare cuts. Meanwhile, climate-deniers want to make sure the president can't take action on climate change in any international trade deals negotiated with fast track authority... Keep in mind that while the TPA offers guidance ("negotiating objectives") to the president as he is negotiating international trade agreements, there's no serious enforcement mechanism if he signs an agreement that fails to meet those objectives. Including limitations on climate negotiations in the customs bill (to amend the TPA) is a con job. Why else would the Obama Administration agree to a last minute Paul Ryan plan to include the climate language in a bid to win over reluctant conservatives if not a tacit admission that none of the restrictions in TPA are binding?
5- Things got interesting on Friday when the House overwhelmingly defeated the TAA part of the package. (The House then went on to narrowly pass the TPA portion, but that was largely a symbolic vote because -- as noted above -- the package could only go to the president for signature if both pieces passed, and so the Rule for the package was structured accordingly.)
6- The House is expected to retry the TAA piece on Tuesday under the same Rule after the White House does some arm twisting over the weekend. But the deficit is so large in terms of votes that would need to be switched that few analysts expect success. Which means...
7- The House could pass TPA and TAA as one vote, but it is not at all clear that leadership has the votes to pass that either.
8- The House has proved it has the votes to pass TPA by itself without TAA, so pro-trade Democrats are expected to use the threat of fast track without worker assistance as a cudgel against their pro-labor colleagues. But it is also not at all clear that TPA without TAA could pass the Senate, given the number of Democrats who placed contingencies on their previous yes votes and given the still-hot opposition to fast track from Democratic Leader Harry Reid ("hell no!").
And that is before considering the Democrats who are angry about ExIm expiring in two weeks and feeling betrayed by McConnell. ExIm, after all, has a very clear deadline while there is no particular deadline for enacting fast track.
9- Another interesting wrinkle: before the House vote, the Heritage Foundation's campaign arm informed House members it was going to negatively score votes for TPA.That infuriated conservative House members who supported TPA:
10- The White House is, of course, expressing confidence and calling this another "procedural snafu," but anyone who tells you they know how this is going to resolve is crazy.
Addendum: If you want to know how weird the whole thing has gotten, this screen capture of the Drudge Report (!!!) says it all:
2- Most of the 14 Senate Democrats who supported the package made clear that their support was contingent on inclusion of TAA.
3- Further, some Senate Democrats (e.g. Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray) voted for the package because Mitch McConnell promised them an imminent vote to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank (a different trade issue), whose charter expires at the end of this month. Having gotten their votes on the trade bills, McConnell reneged and no stand-alone vote on ExIm has since been scheduled.
4- Having passed the Senate, albeit with difficulty, the Obama Administration and House Republicans struggled to secure votes on fast track authority. Among liberals there is deep-seated opposition to NAFTA-style trade agreements and distrust of President Obama's corporatist tendencies (see Treasury, U.S.). Among conservatives, there is equally strong or stronger opposition to and distrust of President Obama (period). Thus, the decision was made to split TAA and TPA into two separate votes. Then, the Rule would combine them back into a single package ready for the president to sign without having to go back to the Senate.
(Traditionally, liberals have liked TAA and conservatives have liked TPA, so the hope was each group would vote for its bill and claim plausible deniability about the final package when it came time to explaining to constituents. When President Obama met with House Democrats before the vote and urged them to "play it straight," he meant, vote for TAA as you always have and just pretend that doing so isn't a de facto vote for fast track this time. One could quibble that that would only be considered "playing it straight" in Washington...)
Additionally, under this deal, the House would vote on a 3rd bill ("customs bill") that would modify both the TAA piece and the TPA piece after they became law. Liberals object that the TAA bill is paid for with Medicare cuts. Meanwhile, climate-deniers want to make sure the president can't take action on climate change in any international trade deals negotiated with fast track authority... Keep in mind that while the TPA offers guidance ("negotiating objectives") to the president as he is negotiating international trade agreements, there's no serious enforcement mechanism if he signs an agreement that fails to meet those objectives. Including limitations on climate negotiations in the customs bill (to amend the TPA) is a con job. Why else would the Obama Administration agree to a last minute Paul Ryan plan to include the climate language in a bid to win over reluctant conservatives if not a tacit admission that none of the restrictions in TPA are binding?
5- Things got interesting on Friday when the House overwhelmingly defeated the TAA part of the package. (The House then went on to narrowly pass the TPA portion, but that was largely a symbolic vote because -- as noted above -- the package could only go to the president for signature if both pieces passed, and so the Rule for the package was structured accordingly.)
I checked with the parliamentarian, and official Congressional nomenclature for this precise contingency is "Clusterf--k"
— Ali Weinberg (@AliABCNews) June 12, 2015
6- The House is expected to retry the TAA piece on Tuesday under the same Rule after the White House does some arm twisting over the weekend. But the deficit is so large in terms of votes that would need to be switched that few analysts expect success. Which means...
7- The House could pass TPA and TAA as one vote, but it is not at all clear that leadership has the votes to pass that either.
8- The House has proved it has the votes to pass TPA by itself without TAA, so pro-trade Democrats are expected to use the threat of fast track without worker assistance as a cudgel against their pro-labor colleagues. But it is also not at all clear that TPA without TAA could pass the Senate, given the number of Democrats who placed contingencies on their previous yes votes and given the still-hot opposition to fast track from Democratic Leader Harry Reid ("hell no!").
And that is before considering the Democrats who are angry about ExIm expiring in two weeks and feeling betrayed by McConnell. ExIm, after all, has a very clear deadline while there is no particular deadline for enacting fast track.
9- Another interesting wrinkle: before the House vote, the Heritage Foundation's campaign arm informed House members it was going to negatively score votes for TPA.That infuriated conservative House members who supported TPA:
Tom Rooney says that it's "absolute hypocrisy" that Heritage did not score the Senate's trade vote and has now decided to hold the House accountable.In which case, one has to wonder, will Heritage Action score TPA in the Senate if it has to be voted on again and will that have an effect on the outcome?
"It is the most absurd thing that I have ever heard that Heritage is scoring a 'no' vote after the Senate has already gotten to vote so they could preserve [Sen. Ted] Cruz's 100 percent record," Rooney said. "They are actually hurting their own cause because you cannot pass the smell test on that."
10- The White House is, of course, expressing confidence and calling this another "procedural snafu," but anyone who tells you they know how this is going to resolve is crazy.
Addendum: If you want to know how weird the whole thing has gotten, this screen capture of the Drudge Report (!!!) says it all:
Comments
Post a Comment