Thread: Senate Democrats block key plank of Obama trade agenda

Senate Dems block key plank of Obama trade agenda

Published May 12, 2015 FoxNews.com



NOW PLAYINGLiberals spar with White House over trans-Pacific trade deal
DEVELOPING ...
President Obama suffered a defeat at the hands of his own party on Tuesday, as Senate Democrats blocked a key component of the president's trade agenda.

After fierce lobbying on both sides of the issue, the proposal to start debate on the president's push for expanded authority to negotiate a trade pact failed on a 52-45 vote. It needed 60 votes to advance.

The president's supporters will likely try again, but the vote nevertheless marks a stinging rebuke of a major Obama priority by members of his own party. Republicans mostly had aligned with Obama on the issue, and after the failed test vote urged Obama's fellow Democrats to drop their resistance.

"What we just saw here is pretty shocking," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said, accusing congressional Democrats of standing with "special interests."

At issue is Obama's push for so-called "fast track" authority -- which would let him negotiate trade deals that Congress can reject or ratify, but not amend. In the short-term, he wants to use this to pursue a broad trade pact with Japan and other Pacific nations.

More on this...

• Obama and Warren have 'war of words' over trade deal
  
  
• Democrats divided over multi-nation trade deal
  
  

But many Democrats aligned with labor unions warned about the impact on U.S. jobs, and openly opposed the White House. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., recently told reporters he's a "hell no" on the proposal. And Obama and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., for days have traded jabs on the matter, with the president calling Warren's claims "absolutely wrong."

ORIGINAL STORY ...
President Obama squares off Tuesday against the liberal flank of his party as Senate lawmakers hold a key test vote on the president's trade agenda.

More than any issue in recent years, Obama's push for expanded powers to advance trade deals has divided Democrats, with many top-ranking lawmakers openly opposing the White House.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has given reporters a firm "hell no" on the proposal. And Obama and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., for days have traded jabs on the matter, with the president calling Warren's claims "absolutely wrong."

The test vote, expected to come sometime Tuesday afternoon, is specifically on the president's request for expanded powers to advance trade deals -- in this case, a broad pact with Pacific nations -- and will offer the first official tally of how deep the Democratic insurrection goes. Sixty votes are needed to advance the measure, and while most of the 54 Republicans are expected to vote yay, Obama still will need some Democratic help -- and many are talking tough.

“We will hold back votes on cloture,” one senior Democratic aide told Fox News, referring to the procedural vote Tuesday afternoon.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said most Democratic senators are inclined to vote no at this stage. Democratic lawmakers and pro-union groups argue such deals take away U.S. jobs.

For the administration, falling short on Tuesday’s vote would sting, and possibly build momentum for opponents. But the pro-trade forces would likely try again this year, possibly under better conditions.

By the same token, starting the full debate this week is no guarantee of success. Labor unions, liberal groups and others vehemently oppose the legislation. It faces "poison pill" amendments, showdowns over "currency manipulation" and, eventually, similar confrontations in the House.

Lobbying for and against the legislation hit overdrive this week. Key groups scheduled almost hourly events on Capitol Hill ahead of Tuesday afternoon's expected vote. Obama devoted much of the weekend to trade, visiting a Nike plant in Oregon and pointedly criticizing a leading Democratic foe, Warren, in an interview with Yahoo News. Obama maintains that U.S. goods and services need better access to the 95 percent of world consumers who live in other countries.

Obama seeks "fast track" authority that would let him present Congress with proposed trade agreements it can ratify or reject, but not amend. If successful, he's likely to ask Congress to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership being negotiated with 11 other countries, including Japan, Vietnam, Canada and Mexico. Other free-trade proposals could follow.

While Obama’s toughest resistance comes from fellow Democrats, at least some of the 54 GOP senators appear likely to oppose the president Tuesday, requiring him to hunt for even more Democratic supporters.

Several Democrats say they will back fast track only if Republican leaders clear a path for three other trade measures. One, to renew the African Growth and Opportunity Act, is uncontroversial.

The second calls for Trade Adjustment Assistance, which provides federal aid to workers displaced by trade agreements. Republicans don't like it, but reluctantly acknowledge it's the price for winning even modest Democratic support.

The third bill, involving Customs enforcement, is the stickiest. It includes a measure to take actions against countries that keep their currency artificially low, which makes their exports more attractive.

The Obama administration opposes the "currency manipulation" measure, saying it could invite international challenges to the Federal Reserve's policies meant to boost the economy.

Late Monday, Senate leaders were sparring over how to "package" the four trade bills.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a Senate speech, "It's incredibly important for American workers that we pass this bill."

Democratic opponents urged wavering colleagues to vote against McConnell on Tuesday -- even if they might support fast track in the end -- to force Republicans to deal first with a surveillance measure that Democrats consider more pressing. That strategy suggests Obama might have better luck on trade in a month or so, should he fall short in Tuesday's vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...te-dems-obama/

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a Senate speech, "It's incredibly important for American workers that we pass this bill.

Yep, they probably said the same thing about NAFTA!

52-45 vote. It needed 60 votes to advance.

We need a list of every Republican that just voted to give Obama more power and immigrants quickly please.

W

How Senators Voted on Cloture to give Obama more power and immigration powers....

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Alexander (R-TN), Yea Ayotte (R-NH), Yea Baldwin (D-WI), Nay Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Bennet (D-CO), Nay Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay Blunt (R-MO), Yea Booker (D-NJ), Not Voting Boozman (R-AR), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Brown (D-OH), Nay Burr (R-NC), Yea Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Capito (R-WV), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Nay Cassidy (R-LA), Yea Coats (R-IN), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Coons (D-DE), Nay Corker (R-TN), Yea Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Cotton (R-AR), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea Cruz (R-TX), Yea Daines (R-MT), Yea Donnelly (D-IN), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Yea Ernst (R-IA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Nay Fischer (R-NE), Yea

Flake (R-AZ), Yea Franken (D-MN), Nay Gardner (R-CO), Yea Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Graham (R-SC), Not Voting Grassley (R-IA), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea Heinrich (D-NM), Nay Heitkamp (D-ND), Nay Heller (R-NV), Yea Hirono (D-HI), Nay Hoeven (R-ND), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea Johnson (R-WI), Yea Kaine (D-VA), Nay King (I-ME), Nay Kirk (R-IL), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay Lankford (R-OK), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Nay Lee (R-UT), Yea Manchin (D-WV), Nay Markey (D-MA), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay Merkley (D-OR), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Moran (R-KS), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murphy (D-CT), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay

Nelson (D-FL), Nay Paul (R-KY), Yea Perdue (R-GA), Yea Peters (D-MI), Nay Portman (R-OH), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Risch (R-ID), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rounds (R-SD), Yea Rubio (R-FL), Not Voting Sanders (I-VT), Nay Sasse (R-NE), Yea Schatz (D-HI), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Scott (R-SC), Yea Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Sullivan (R-AK), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea Tillis (R-NC), Yea Toomey (R-PA), Yea Udall (D-NM), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Yea Warner (D-VA), Nay Warren (D-MA), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay Wicker (R-MS), Yea Wyden (

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00176

A YEA vote is a vote to invoke cloture which would stop discussion and bring the bill to a vote. A YEA vote FOR cloture is a vote in support of the TPP. Our GOP Senators need to be rebuked for this vote to give Obama more power!!!

YEAs ---52
Alexander (R-TN) Ayotte (R-NH) Barrasso (R-WY) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Burr (R-NC) Capito (R-WV) Carper (D-DE) Cassidy (R-LA) Coats (R-IN) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Cotton (R-AR) Crapo (R-ID) Cruz (R-TX) Daines (R-MT)	Enzi (R-WY) Ernst (R-IA) Fischer (R-NE) Flake (R-AZ) Gardner (R-CO) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Heller (R-NV) Hoeven (R-ND) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (R-WI) Kirk (R-IL) Lankford (R-OK) Lee (R-UT) McCain (R-AZ) Moran (R-KS) Murkowski (R-AK)	Paul (R-KY) Perdue (R-GA) Portman (R-OH) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Rounds (R-SD) Sasse (R-NE) Scott (R-SC) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Sullivan (R-AK) Thune (R-SD) Tillis (R-NC) Toomey (R-PA) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---45
Baldwin (D-WI) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Donnelly (D-IN) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Heinrich (D-NM)	Heitkamp (D-ND) Hirono (D-HI) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Manchin (D-WV) Markey (D-MA) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA)	Nelson (D-FL) Peters (D-MI) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3
Booker (D-NJ)	Graham (R-SC)	Rubio (R-FL)

imblest wrote:

A YEA vote is a vote to invoke cloture which would stop discussion and bring the bill to a vote. A YEA vote FOR cloture is a vote in support of the TPP. Our GOP Senators need to be rebuked for this vote to give Obama more power!!!

I'm not so sure that is true. Isn't it possible that someone could vote 'yea' simply because they know the bill doesn't have the votes to pass? The reason I say that is because Sen. Sessions vote 'yea' but everything I've read on him recently tells me he is against the TPP. For example:

"The GOP Follows Sen. Sessions - Backwards" on Immigration and Trade

Nick Gillespie|May. 12, 2015 9:14 am

4

Who caused Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's amazing flip-flop on immigration? The Republican presidential hopeful used to be in favor of letting more people into the country and legalizing those here illegally. Which is to say, he used to be positively Reaganesque on the issue.
Then he started listening to Sessions, one of the great nativists of the current moment, who has yet to meet an immigrant he likes or a southern border he doesn't want to fortify. As Walker explained to Breitbart.com:

In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying—the next president and the next congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages, because the more I’ve talked to folks, I’ve talked to Senator Sessions and others out there—but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today—is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages, and we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.

Sessions is indeed an influential figure in contemporary conservative politics and that's a damn shame. For the country at large, for huddled masses yearning to be free, and, as I argue in a new column for The Daily Beast, for the Republican Party too.

Gallup

Contra Sessions, there is no clear public desire for reducing immigration, except among Republicans. Fully 84 percent of Republicans are dissatisfied with the current generous levels, a super-majority that only shows how out of touch the GOP faithful is with the rest of the country. Earlier this year, Gallup found that 54 percent of Americans are either satisfied with current levels of immigration or want more immigration. Just 39 percent were dissatisfied and want less immigration, which is 11 points lower than the same figure in 2008.
The majority of Americans embrace immigration for a lot of different reasons. Part of it is our history and sense of national identity and part of it is a basic if unarticulated recognition of what economists on the right and left haveconsistently found: “On average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans.”

Leave aside the fact that immigrants are twice as likely to start their own businesses as native-born Americans. The fact is they tend to be either higher- or lower-skilled than the typical worker, so they complement rather than displace natives. And, as the Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh documents in his exhaustive rebuttal to Sessions’s Washington Post piece, immigrants not only consume less welfare and commit less crime than the average American, they pay taxes (often without any hope of getting the money back) and stop coming when the economy sours. If you think immigrants cause problems, check out the parts of the country that nobody is moving to and you’ll understand that it’s precisely when migrants stop coming that your real troubles are starting.

By the way, Alabama is lagging nationwide population growth. Just saying.

Whole Beast piece here.
Sessions is also against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) or "fast-track authority," a standard practice in negotiating such deals for 40 years that allows the executive branch to negotiate a deal and then bring it to Congress for an up-or-down vote. His anti-TPA/TPP stance has him locking arms with such champions of laissez-faire at Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Gov. Martin O'Mally, and Sen. Bernie Sanders. The main reason Sessions dunnit like the deal? Well, allowing the president to negotiate deals that are then submitted to Congress is a dangerous "consolidaton of power" don't you know? And heavens to Hessians, "TPA could facilitate immigration increases above current law." Also, reducing trade barriers could increase...trade with other countries, potentially leading to "increased trade deficits." This is all according to a CRITICAL ALERT the senator released last week (ALL CAPS in original).
There are reasons to be against TPP but increased trade deficits and potentially increased immigration are not among them. In many ways, Sessions represents the worst tendencies of the contemporary Republican Party. He's for limited government, except when it comes to social issues and increasing the defense budget. He's in favor of employer-surveillance programs such as E-Verify, he's conspiracist when it comes to the executive branch (as long as a Dem is sitting in the Oval Office).
But that's him. It's a real shame that other Republicans, especially those running for president, are following his lead on trade and immigration. Those used to be issues the GOP was pretty good on, meaning they were pretty libertarian. Those days seem to be receding into the past.



Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason.com and Reason TV and the co-author of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong With America, just out in paperback.
Follow Nick Gillespie on Twitter

http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/12/th...ns-backwards-o

I suspect a few folks voted 'yea' simply because they knew the votes weren't there to pass the bill. If you know the actual bill will not pass, why not vote for cloture so the bill will be voted on?

Oh, and I know Rand Paul does not support the TPP, yet he also voted 'yea' to invoke cloture. Knowing exactly why each individual votes 'yea' and 'nay' on a cloture vote is not always as clear cut as it may seem. The only way you can be 100% of where they stand on a bill is when they actually vote on the bill itself. Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.) — Burr was the only Republican on the Senate Finance Committee to vote against the fast-track bill, yet he also voted for cloture. Just saying .....

Voting for cloture allows the bill to proceed. I don't want this TPP bill to proceed! It is bad for the U.S.A.! So voting against cloture stops it!

Originally Posted by imblest

Voting for cloture allows the bill to proceed. I don't want this TPP bill to proceed! It is bad for the U.S.A.! So voting against cloture stops it!

There is nothing wrong with the bill proceeding if it's a known fact that it doesn't have the votes to pass. What I'm saying is some of those 'yea' votes would have turned into 'nay' votes when the bill was actually voted on. I've seen it happen many times before. Like I said, you can't always tell exactly where an individual stands based solely on his or her response to a cloture vote. I'm pretty sure Sen. Sessions, Sen. Burr, and Sen. Paul would vote 'nay' against the actual bill even though they voted 'yea' on the cloture vote. There are probably a few more that would have done the same thing too. So, actually invoking cloture could be a good thing because it would have brought the bill to a floor vote where the votes weren't actually there to pass it. Maybe some folks think I'm off my rocker, but that's how I see it.

I agree with Imblest on this. A yes vote on Cloture is a yes vote on the bill to proceed and the outcome of most bills in the Senate is based on the cloture votes not the final votes.

It is highly disturbing that every GOP senator voting including Jeff sessions voted YEA on Cloture which was a vote to give Obama more power and pass TPP.

W