White House expected to offer Colombia FTA

Trade lobbyists expect the White House to try to force a vote on a controversial trade pact with Colombia, a risky election-year strategy that holds potential political ramifications for both parties.

Many House Democrats, especially those who have railed against trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), would likely welcome the chance to defeat a new trade agreement. Polls show declining support for trade deals, and several Democratic presidential candidates have also criticized trade on the campaign trail.

{mosads}But rejecting the trade pact holds complications for Democratic leaders as well. Colombia is a key American ally in a region where anti-American rhetoric is on the rise.

Despite the rising skepticism surrounding trade, the Bush administration and Democratic Congress did reach a deal on one trade pact with a South American country last year. But the administration offered the new pact with Peru to Congress only after Democratic leaders had signaled their support. Congress approved the deal, but less than half of the Democratic Caucus voted for it.

This time, the administration is apparently considering sending the trade pact with Colombia without prior approval from Democrats, a move some lobbyists worry could backfire given the sensitivity surrounding the issue.

The Colombia deal, venomous to labor unions, is subject to so-called fast track rules that would impose a tight timetable on its consideration and would prevent Congress from amending it. Once legislation implementing the deal is introduced, fast track requires Congress to give the deal an up-or-down vote within 90 working congressional days.

“Our goal is to work with the Congress on a way that makes a path forward for Colombia,” said Sean Spicer, a spokesman for the U.S. trade representative. “We’ll work with them one by one if we have to.”

Spicer insisted that no decision on introducing the legislation has been made. Business lobbyists, however, expect the administration to pull the trigger.

“Every indication is they are going to do it,” said one pro-Colombia trade lobbyist, who asked to speak on background. “I haven’t heard anything different.”

Doing so would make it more difficult to successfully guide the bill through Congress, a House Democratic aide warned. Labor unions have drawn a line in the sand because of violence in Colombia against labor organizers.

The administration has mounted an extensive effort to overcome labor opposition and win Democratic support for the trade pact. Six congressional delegation trips (codels) to Colombia led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab and other key economic advisers are planned over the next three months, Spicer said.

Administration figures have already led four codels to Colombia. The administration has also launched an aggressive public relations push, reaching out to editorial boards around the country.

President Bush sees Colombia as a key U.S. ally in Latin America against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Colombia President Alvaro Uribe discussed the trade deal with Bush at the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, on Dec. 31.

The geopolitical stakes for Bush may be too high not to send the bill to Congress, some lobbyists believe.
“The administration needs to show resolve that the agreement will be voted on in 2008,” said Bill Lane, a lobbyist for Caterpillar who co-chairs a business coalition that supports the deal. At the same time, Lane said, the administration “needs to go the extra mile and try to address it on a bipartisan basis.”

Lobbyists are nervous about a confrontational strategy, calling the introduction of legislation without the consent of Democratic leaders the “nuclear” option. They said it could have a negative impact on a new fast track law by, for example, strengthening arguments that a future fast track law include no deadlines for congressional votes.

Doug Goudie, a trade lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers, said his members want to see the Colombia deal pass, “but we don’t want to poison the well among pro-trade Democrats. We certainly want to work in a bipartisan way.”

“I think most people in the business community have been urging the administration to get some kind of, if not a green light, a yellow light” on Colombia, said Christopher Wenk of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
At the same time, some observers believe Bush and his staff will want to move Colombia on their watch.

Even if the administration presents the Colombia legislation to Congress and the 90-day clock for a vote starts ticking, it is possible House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could use the House Rules Committee to block the bill.

This would involve eliminating fast-track procedures in the rule covering legislation implementing the trade deal with Colombia. While fast track puts tight timetables on committee consideration of trade deals and imposes a deadline for floor votes, it does little to affect the Rules Committee process and would not prevent the House or Senate from changing their internal rules.  

“Fast track is designed to get a bill out of committee,” Goudie said. “It is not designed to get it on the floor.”
Business lobbyists admit it would be politically difficult for Pelosi to allow a vote on Colombia, at least if it were likely to pass, because such a move could alienate unions in an election year where labor will be a part of the Democratic Party’s get-out-the-vote strategy.

At the same time, these sources said Pelosi also risks negative headlines if the Democratic Congress is seen as killing the deal, since it would put Pelosi on the opposite side of a U.S. ally in a critical part of the world.

Most House Republicans would be expected to support the deal, but business lobbyists said as many as 45 Democratic votes would be needed to put the deal over the top.