Congress Gossip Blog
Congress Outmaneuvers Bush on U.S.-Colombia FTA
April 10, 2008 - by Donny Shaw
UPDATE: The rule change discussed below was approved, largely along party lines.
House Democrats have found a clever way to regain control of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement that President Bush is trying to fast-track into law without the usual process of congressional consultation. They are trying to pass a bill to change the law that gives the President any authority on the issue in the first place.
Because of the Free Trade The Fast Track law, Congress is required to act on the U.S.-Colombia trade pact within 90 legislative days of when it was submitted to Congress. The Bush administration officially had the agreement introduced into Congress on April 8th in order to ensure that it is dealt with before Congress disbands for the year. Many Democrats, however, oppose the deal, citing human rights violations by the Colombian government.
Today the House will attempt a vote to change the Administration’s fast-track authority on this bill, giving Congress control of when and if they bring it up for a vote. Majority Whip James Clyburn’s (D-SC) Daily Whipline explains why they are doing it and how it will work:
This flexibility is necessary to create time for there to be bipartisan negotiations on measures to strengthen the American economy and help American workers first. The worsening economic downturn, as evidenced by the jobless numbers on Friday and the statements by Fed Chairman Bernanke and now as recently as yesterday, former Fed Chairman Greenspan, requires that the top priority for this Congress is to get our economy back on track. Through bipartisan negotiations and action on the American economy, we can create the conditions and opportunity for the Colombia Free Trade deal to pass.
This change is necessitated by the President’s partisan actions. Instead of working with Congress on the economic concerns of the American people, on Tuesday, the President took the unprecedented step of sending up the Colombia Trade deal without following established protocols of Congressional consultation. His actions were political and counter-productive, jeopardizing prospects for its passage.
This rule would remove the fast-track timeline for the Colombia free-trade agreement—simply returning to Congress the rightful constitutional role in scheduling consideration of measures. The Fast Track law (PL 107-210) expressly recognizes “the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that House” and that is what we are doing.
The New York Times has a great article on some of the politics involved in the Democrats’ linking of the free trade bill with the economic issues currently plaguing the U.S. According to the article, part of the reason Democrats are trying to regain control of the FTA agreement is that they may be able to use it as a bargaining chip down the road as they consider an Iraq supplemental funding bill. Democrats are hoping to attach some domestic spending measures – an extension of food stamp and unemployment benefits – to the supplemental bill. In their previous attempts to enact these measures, the administration, backed by congressional Republicans, were able to put up a successful blockade.
UPDATE 2: David Sirota provides some evidence that today’s move to delay a vote on the U.S.-Colombia FTA wasn’t because House Democrats oppose it, but because they are afraid that if it came to a vote soon, It wouldn’t have enough support to pass.
Rating Filter: 5
(Close help)
Comments
(Close help)
What does 'sending up' mean?
Congress isn't in conrol of the free trae agreement because They're not needed. So, where is the free trade agreement?
Maybe we could publish it or something and decide whether we should add Iraq war issues, food stamps and unemployment benefits. Maybe we should put up a 'blockade' and keep the issues seperate.
"OpenCongress", or as it is better known, "DemocraticTalkingPointsCongress". Thanks for the info.
Hi Anonymous,
Yes, of course Clyburn's explanation is basically talking point material. That's why I also provided links to two articles that attempt to give deeper explanations of what is behind the Democrats' move here.
It is strange the AFL CIO says their unions are murderers. It sure helped Obama. Yes, that's Jimmy Hoffa's AFL CIO.
The actual agreement is the implemntation act or what the President sent?
Bush just said don't worry about the 2010 budget. The five year budgets for agencies and NGOs just got passed by the House. So, the new five year budgets that were one year budgets are passed by the House and the Senate isn't needed? He can have his Colombia free trade now?
The law is specific to Colombia or is it just a move to take away fast track for the President? When the new President is in this will eliminate his ability to pass bills like the Global AIDs bill?
The law effects all foreign aid.
The vote yesterday only affected presidential fast track authority as it relates to the U.S.-Columbia FTA bill. It created an exception exclusively for that bill.
Colombia was singled out by the House and the AFL CIO complaint about unions in Colombia. This doesn't seem fair and the 'human rights' complaint just reinforces what most countries see as a way Americans cuts off aid. It seems like the House tool to stop the trade agreement.
So, fast rack will be changed to reflect human rights issues as a consideration in foreign aid use. What are the qualifications? This needs to be codified. Foreign aid exceptions should be permitted only by the President based on National Security or the Secretary of State and security concerns? Maybe foreign aid exceptions should be run by the House? For example Fiji, Thailand and the Dali Lama's Tibet?
Foreign aid exceptions like the Global Aids Bill and Peace Corps need Congress to codify the government's human rights qualifications for the aid.
hey im writting a paper on this issue for a class.. and im not sure if im understanding the subject clearly...
was the bill passed
are we now agreeing on having a FTA with Columbia?
I think they misspelled Colombia.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia)
They are changing the procedure to end the bill. The House then cited human rights after the ALC CIO complained to Hillary, helping Obama. Later, they added environmental issues.
The excuse of adding things to a free trade bill that have nothing to do with free trade makes no sense. They claim they want to help the US economy when they doubled the Global AIDs bill to 50 billion and added five year budgets to the agencies that will be receiving the money.
They want to help the US economy when the just voted budgets out five years and doubled them and doubled the Global AIDs bill to 50 billion. They want to help with mortgages and the US economy when they vote to give away 50 billion dollars and extend the obligation out five years. Why not attach what is attached to the free trade bill to the Global AIDs bill? AIDs care for Americans? It doesn't help the US economy or US workers to give away money to foreign countries over a long period of time.
The House seems to be a game. They won't vote because Farr(Colombia meeting) already ruined the deal in games with FARC and land socialists and, if they vote, they have to vote for it.
Why aren't there limits on the five year budget? Costs may go up over five years for goods or services. The agencies that hire based on a five year budget from the foreign aid bill five year budget may have cost increases also.
Where are matching funds? Who else is contributing? In the US emergencies States have to pay matching funds and they can be 35 to 50%. Can other countries contribute a percentage? Can the recipients help?
Well written piece, Donny. Explains a lot of what is going on and the reasoning behind it. I would have thought the Dems were opposed to the FTA, not just planning to use it as a bargaining chip. Interesting.
Add A Comment