Congress Still Debating Fast Track Trade Authority for Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations

22 June 2015 Manufacturing Industry Advisor Blog

Congressional leaders are working to find a way to pass legislation that would give President Obama fast-track authority to negotiate a trade deal that will potentially govern 40 percent of U.S. imports and exports. The Trade Act of 2015 [also referred to as “Trade Promotion Authority” (TPA) or “fast-track trade authority”], would allow the President to negotiate the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade deal with limited congressional interference.

Republican leadership in both chambers is using complicated legislative maneuvers to advance the legislation – a top priority for the Obama administration. The Senate has already passed a version of the bill. But, earlier this month, Democrats in the House, under significant pressure from labor unions who strongly oppose the measure, voted against part of the legislative package they would normally support – Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) benefits for workers hurt by trade deals. The TAA and TPA measures needed to pass together – and match the Senate-passed bill – in order to advance to the President for enactment. This forced House Republican leadership to hold another vote June 18 on a stand-alone TPA measure, which passed 218 -208 with the help of 28 Democrats. [See our earlier post regarding this action.]

The Senate is now scheduled to vote on the stand-alone TPA legislation as early as June 23. If the Senate passes that bill it will go to the President’s desk. The Senate would then take up another bill that combines the TAA benefits with a non-controversial bill to expand an existing Africa trade law. Upon passage, this new TAA measure would be sent to the House for consideration.

With a TPA measure in hand, the President could then pressure House Democrats into supporting the TAA bill or else let the TPA become law without the addition of worker benefits. This strategy relies heavily on Senate Democrats agreeing to pass the TPA without TAA worker benefits. It is unclear whether Senate Democrats are willing to take that risky vote, but House and Senate Republican leaders have publicly committed to getting the legislation passed as soon as possible.

More on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Enactment of fast-track trade legislation will invigorate negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement designed to promote international trade and investment by lowering tariffs, harmonizing regulations, and eliminating Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) to trade. The TPP will initially cover 12 countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. Collectively these countries represent 40 percent of the global economy. The treaty also establishes mechanisms for other countries to join in the future.

The TPP will create new rules governing cross-border trade, including competition, customs duties, market access, rules of origin, and trade disputes. Special arbitration provisions would permit cause of action filings against foreign governments. The TPP will govern foreign exports, imports, and investment implicating several major sectors of the U.S. economy, including manufacturing, intellectual property, textiles and apparel, telecommunications, agriculture and others. It will also cover labor, employment, and environmental issues.

For more information on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, check out our Fact Sheet.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Bad Holiday Season News! Estimates of an increase of Cyberattacks 20%!
13 December 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Driving the Future of Automotive Technology
12 December 2019
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Massachusetts Governor Proposes Facility Fee Ban
12 December 2019
Health Care Law Today
American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"
12 December 2019
IP Litigation Current
ACCC 46th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit
04-05 March 2020
Washington, D.C.
Foley/Deloitte Compliance and Privacy Officer Roundtable
27 February 2020
Boston, MA
Let’s Talk Compliance
24 January 2020
Orlando, FL
New England Alliance Annual Meeting
15-17 January 2020
Woodstock, VT