As Congress returns from a two week spring break, both the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees have indicated they are close to agreement on the fast track procedure, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) which is needed to pass two pending trade deals, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). TPA is, specifically, a grant of power to President Obama that will allow him to move the agreements without threat of amendment or filibuster, the magic words to get through Congress these days.
Ironically, it is congressional Republicans who support giving this power to the president. Much of the opposition comes from congressional Democrats and other allied groups.
For instance, last month, the city council in the overwhelmingly Democratic city of Seattle passed a resolution opposing TPP, the 12 nation Pacific Rim trade agreement which would significantly benefit their region. Although the resolution has no effect on the agreement or federal legislation, its symbolism is significant. Washington is the most trade dependent state in the nation, and one where President Obama easily won in both his elections.
Yet the city council unanimously rejected free trade citing fears that companies or international tribunals might be able to override local labor and environment regulations such as their $15 minimum wage law. Council members noted that a lack of transparency around the TPP negotiations is a factor leading to these concerns. Although the Seattle City Council does not have a vote, members of Congress who must be consulted and ultimately approve have expressed the same frustration.
The list of grievances by the Seattle City Council is not new or novel. It is the same complaints by labor and environmental groups that have been around since the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) more than two decades ago. The 600-pound gorilla of labor groups, the AFL-CIO, has flexed its full political muscle, announcing suspension of its political contributions to focus on fighting trade deals, criticizing it as a “policy made behind closed doors.”
Anticipating imminent congressional action on TPA, labor, environment and civic groups, constituencies that usually support President Obama, have planned nationwide events on April 18th calling the Trans-Pacific Partnership “the dirtiest trade deal you never heard of.”
It surprises no one when Republicans complain about a lack of transparency from this White House, but when members of the President’s own party and his normally allied constituencies are the ones who won’t give him the benefit of the doubt, this Administration should be more worried than it is. For the last six years, it has made such little effort to be open and transparent in its dealings, it has lost the confidence of groups which should be its strongest supporters. Even House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has said the White House could get votes on trade if it were handled in a transparent manner.
Trade presents an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation in a town that the rest of America continues to regard as “broken.” Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker’s national campaign to garner public support for trade earlier this year included a stop in the Seattle metro area, but it was not enough to convince the Seattle City Council. In order to move in the right direction, President Obama needs to make a personal commitment on trade. Like the complaints about trade, the substantive responses are largely the same as they were during the NAFTA debate as well. President Obama can find those in Bill Clinton’s notes from over 20 years ago. The important, critical ingredient is changing the “just trust us, we are doing what is right for you” formula.
The White House should create a more open posture of actually answering questions posed by the American public in the administration’s remaining two years. President Obama needs to live up to the open, bipartisan government he promised as a candidate. Members of his own party will then have less cause to complain about transparency, and will then maybe focus not only on the economic benefits, but strategic aspects of these agreements.
We need to improve our deteriorating relationships with governments around the world. TPP and TTIP could be a part of the repair process. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is scheduled to visit Washington at the end of April, and as Japan is a party to TPP, it is on the agenda for discussion with President Obama. Perhaps by then, he will have good news to share.
Trade is also an opportunity for Congress, an institution where the most bipartisan trait these days is low approval ratings. Both John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are willing to support TPA. If the Republican leadership can do so in spite of the trust deficit with President Obama, then congressional Democrats should certainly be able to do so as well. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi need to address the widespread issues in their caucuses and find a way to support the agenda of a Democratic president. If the president will engage effectively with the members currently critical and earn their trust on trade, he can then urge them to take the message home as well.
The majority of Washington’s bipartisan congressional delegation usually supports trade, so perhaps President Obama can enlist their support now in convincing the people of Seattle that, in spite of their city council’s resolution, he is the President that they voted for, and that these trade agreements are in their interest.
Manisha Singh is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of State, and former Senior Professional Staff to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.