Republicans frustrated by President Obama’s persistent efforts to avoid congressional input and oversight–for example, in the nuclear talks with Iran–have at times lamented that congressional Democrats don’t seem to want to defend their turf alongside them. But now it turns out that’s generally been the case because Democratic congressional leaders simply agree with Obama or trust him enough to cut a deal. Not so with free trade. And now Democrats are elbowing their way into trade negotiations at the president’s expense.
The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent details the efforts that labor groups are expending in trying to shape the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multinational trade deal that has been brewing for years and that the Obama administration continues to negotiate. What the president wants is “fast-track” authority, which would mean Obama could negotiate the deal itself and Congress would get an up-or-down vote on it, no amendments. But much like Republicans (and some Democrats) on the Iran deal, Democrats (and some Republicans) don’t trust Obama on trade.
And AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka is pushing Congress to adopt a rather creative way to get around fast-track authority:
But Trumka and other critics of the process are pushing for additional built-in accountability mechanisms. Among them would be a provision that would allow Congress to revoke this fast-track authority by a simple-majority vote, once the details of the trade deal are known. This would allow Congress to, in effect, press the administration to renegotiate a better deal if it falls short. The administration would surely argue that this risks scuttling the whole process. But such a move, the AFL-CIO maintains, would essentially reinforce Congressional oversight over the process and also place some accountability for it on Congress, rather than allowing Members to throw up their hands and say, “well, we only have the power to vote on the final bill now, so let’s approve it; it’s better than nothing.”
Trumka claims that a failure to pursue such changes would amount to Congressional abdication of responsibility. “The Constitution vests power over international trade with the Congress,” Trumka says in his letter to Senators. “Congress should not abandon its Constitutional authority by allowing the executive branch to disregard its objectives and hide its activities but still be awarded with preferential and expedited treatment.”
Trumka’s point about congressional oversight is well taken. But not only is his solution unrealistic; it appears to be nothing but a poison pill to scuttle trade talks.
The reason a president asks for “fast-track” authority (also known as Trade Promotion Authority) is because it can coax trade partners to the table–and get them to stay there. Trade deals are complex agreements, and foreign governments aren’t always willing to negotiate with the roster of the U.S. Congress in addition to the president’s team. Fast-track authority is a way to get around the thorniest possible sticking points, such as union and environmental concerns. And Congress still gets a vote.
Trumka’s idea of getting Congress to enact a rule enabling them to retroactively revoke fast-track authority once the deal is finalized is worse than opening the negotiations to Congress, as far as foreign governments are concerned. It means all their work could be undone because Congress doesn’t like the final terms, but congressional input won’t be part of the equation along the way, so they’ll all be flying blind.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but no negotiator worth his salt would ever agree to a deal with an American president under these circumstances, especially not when fast-track authority is still a possibility. Trumka’s idea is too clever by half. It would wreck the process.
Is that the intent? Perhaps. And Democratic opposition to trade is particularly challenging for a Democratic president (just as Republican opposition would be for a Republican president) because the party out of power tends to view trade with more skepticism than they do when their party controls the White House. As Gallup notes, a majority in the U.S. still see trade as an opportunity to grow the U.S. economy vs. a threat from foreign imports. But party affiliation tends to sway:
From 2001 to 2011, spanning the entire presidency of George W. Bush and the first two years of Obama’s presidency, the percentage of Republicans seeing foreign trade as an opportunity was higher than that of Democrats — in several cases, by double-digit margins. In 2012 and 2013, Democrats grew sharply more positive about trade, even as Republican views languished in the 40% to low 50% range. Opinion among the two party groups converged in 2014, but this year, Republicans’ optimism about foreign trade is flat at 51%, while Democrats’ has increased slightly, to 61%.
The good news for Obama, then, is that there is public support on the Democratic side for free trade. The bad news is they’re the ones digging in their heels against letting him negotiate a deal.
Those numbers tell us something else: Trumka is making a tough bet here. If a Republican wins in 2016, it’ll likely mean the Senate stays red too. With a Republican president, expect Republican support for free trade to increase again. (It’s still a majority, remember, so it’ll likely go even higher.) Does Trumka think he can stop a deal then? Maybe Obama’s his best chance to get a labor-friendly agreement.
The other issue here is that it’s not just the GOP that objects to Obama’s intent to go around Congress; the level of outrage just depends on the issue. Between Obama’s executive actions on immigration, his pending treaty with Iran, and the massive trade deal, among others, there does not appear to be any element of Obama’s second-term agenda he believes he needs Congress for. Even Democrats were bound to object once his quest for uncontested rule made their interest groups sufficiently uncomfortable.
