President Obama personally appealed to Democratic representatives not to vote against a job-retraining bill. They rejected the appeal and voted against the bill, defeating it. This puts a big crimp in Obama’s and Congressional Republicans’ hopes of passing a bill to “fast track” three trade bills. From Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.:
He’s ignored Congress and disrespected Congress for years, and then comes to the caucus and lectures us for 40 minutes about his values and whether or not we’re being honest by using legislative tactics to try and stop something which we believe is a horrible mistake for the United States of America, and questions our integrity. It wasn’t the greatest strategy.
This is from a Democratic representative. Something about things that go around eventually coming around comes to mind. For more on the trade legislation, see “Paul Ryan Channels Pelosi on the TPP – You Have to Pass Obamatrade to See What’s in Obamatrade,” SLL, 6/11/15
Is this just a temporary setback for TPP vs. possible derailment? I just do not know enough about the approval/disapproval process.
I’m not sure either, not being all that conversant with Congress’ many arcane rules and procedures.
These bills are interdependent. TAA (Trade Adjustment Assistance) was where the hang up was. Essentially a pot of money to be doled out if lost your job due to TPP. As you’d expect D’s wanted more and R’s wanted less if any. This probably was the deciding factor in getting the needed D’s support for TPA (Trade Promotion Authority). According to my rep. spokesman, TPA allows for supposed transparency for all future trade bills put forth by the executive, does not allow for amendments, and would require up/down vote to pass. This includes TPP that has supposedly been in the works for 6-10 years. He put a somewhat pretty picture of it that the legislative is reasserting its power. Everything I’m reading is this is not done yet. TPA will be attempted again next week, then the MOAB TPP will be brought forth for all to see. Ironically, Queen Nance says we need to read it before we pass it.
I believe your interpretation is correct. Three trade agreements are pending that are unquestionably “treaties,” and should be subject to the Constitution’s requirement of a 2/3s vote of approval by the Senate. It is disingenuous to pass TPA, which lowers the bar to passage to an up or down majority vote with no amendments permitted before anyone knows what’s in those agreements. There have already been disclosures, mostly by Wikileaks, that are certainly cause for concern. Hypocritical as Queen Nance has been, she is right that we need to read the legislation before it is passed, but she does not go far enough–we should be able to read it before we pass the TPA which will put the three treaties on the legislative fast track.
My thoughts as well. Not the scholar I should be, but doesn’t the constitution provide us with instruction how to deal with treaties and trade already? It’s not like treaties are a new phenomena.
I stand corrected. I read something recently indicating TPA was voted on and passed. It has not been signed into law because they still want the TAA that failed. It’s got to be bad if they anticipate needing assistance when the layoffs occur as a result of TPP. Talk about confusion and chaos.
TPA: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll362.xml
TAA: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll361.xml
Thanks for the clarification.