Obama's landmark trade bill faces showdown vote with House Democrats

The outcome uncertain and the drama intense heading into Friday's votes.

Carolyn Kaster/AP
President Obama speaks in Washington June 9, 2015. A landmark trade bill that tops Obama's second-term agenda faces a showdown vote in the House as Democrats mount a last-ditch effort to kill it.

A landmark trade bill that tops President Barack Obama's second-term agenda faces a showdown vote in the House as Democrats mount a last-ditch effort to kill it.

The outcome was uncertain and the drama intense heading into Friday's votes. In frantic 11th-hour maneuvering, liberals in the House defied their own president and turned against a favored program of their own that retrains workers displaced by trade. Killing the program would kill the companion trade bill, and many Democrats and labor leaders advocated just that.

The move caught the GOP off-guard. House Republicans, already in the awkward position of allying themselves with Obama, found themselves being asked by their leaders to vote for a worker retraining program that most have long opposed as wasteful. Many were reluctant to do so, leaving the fate of the entire package up in the air, and Obama facing the prospect of a humiliating defeat at the hands of his own party members — unless he can eke out what all predict would be the narrowest of wins.

"If we have to pass something that's a Democratic ideal with all Republicans to get the whole thing to go," said Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., "we could be in trouble."

The main trade bill at issue would give Obama so-called "fast track" authority to negotiate trade deals that Congress could approve or reject, but not amend. He hopes to use the authority, already agreed to by the Senate, to complete a sweeping pact with 11 other Pacific Rim nations which would constitute the economic centerpiece of his second term. Obama says such a pact with Japan, Mexico, Singapore, and other nations constituting 40 percent of the global economy would open up critical new markets for American products.

Business groups like the Chamber of Commerce crave the deal; labor unions are ardently opposed, pointing to job and wage losses from earlier trade pacts opponents say never lived up to the hype from previous administrations.

Those colliding interests have produced unusual alliances on Capitol Hill, with House Republicans working to help a president they oppose on nearly every other issue, and most Democrats working against him.

Yet in a convoluted series of events Thursday, the fast-track bill, long the main event, seemed to fade in importance even as Republicans began sounding confident it would command enough votes to pass. Instead, Democrats began eyeing the possibility of taking down the related Trade Adjustment Assistance bill — a maneuver that would be made possible only because of how House leaders decided to link the two of them in rules governing how they would come to a vote.

Republicans said that the sequencing was determined at the behest of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Pelosi, trying to maintain leverage, has remained noncommittal on the whole issue to the end, even as she worked behind the scenes with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, this week to solve a last-minute hang-up involving Democratic concerns about cutting Medicare funds to pay for worker retraining.

The intricate solution to the Medicare issue lay in finding another revenue source —various tax penalties — and also lining up the votes in a certain order that made passage of the fast-track bill contingent on passage of thetrade adjustment bill. That created the opening for Democratic fast-track opponents to take aim at the tradeadjustment measure.

"The TAA is the handmaiden to facilitate the whole deal," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. "We have the potential to stop this whole train."

Friday's outcome appears to depend on how many Democrats defect on the trade adjustment bill — and whether Republicans can make up their numbers. The biggest questions hanging over the House late Thursday were: How many of the 188 Democrats will vote against TAA because it's the best way to kill fast track? And how many of the 246 Republicans might hold their noses and vote for the jobs program in a bid to save fast track?

The trade issue's divisiveness was evident when the House voted narrowly, 217-212, on a procedure Thursday to advance the package to Friday's expected showdown.

The White House, recognizing the precarious position the package is in, dispatched top officials to Capitol Hill Thursday to meet with Democrats, and Obama himself made a surprise appearance at Thursday night's annual congressional baseball game. Arriving as Democratic and Republican lawmakers faced off at Nationals Park,Obama was greeted with chants of "TPA! TPA!" from the GOP side — the acronym for the Trade Promotion Authority fast track bill.

___

Associated Press writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.