In a significant change of position, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) now says it is not currently necessary to extend President Bush's fast-track trade authority.
Baucus's staffer said that the senator "continues to maintain that fast-track should be renewed."
Again, I repeat: I can't even follow this absurd K Street-inspired dance. But then, I guess when the smell of corporate cash gets in the air, it makes politicians behave in embarrassing ways.
Montana Sen. Max Baucus is all over the news displaying his outrage at the proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement. As the Denver Post reports, Baucus and other Western senators are upset that the deal does not include provisions making sure South Korea opens its markets for beef.
This is, of course, a very valid concern. But is Max "The World Is Flat" Baucus really going to scuttle all the other things he likes about such a trade deal for this one provision? Is he really willing to give up all those patents protections for his former staffers-turned-drug-industry lobbyists, and all those intellectual property protections for high tech products - all for beef? To Max, wouldn't that be throwing out the baby with the bathwater in the same way he criticizes fair trade Democrats when they threaten to filibuster entire trade deals over labor, human rights and environmental standards?
Of course it would - Max has pharmaceutical and high-tech campaign donors to think about. So why isn't he coming out against "fast track" trade negotiating authority, so that Congress could simply amend his concerns into the proposed U.S.-South Korea Trade Agreement?
Right now, "fast track" allows presidents to send final trade deals to Congress for a simple up-or-down vote - and prevents lawmakers like Max from amending the deals to address their concerns. Without "fast track," Max could offer an amendment to the U.S.-South Korea Trade Agreement forcing South Korea to open its beef markets as a condition of the deal. Put another way, Baucus's current behavior inadvertently makes a strong case for him to oppose "fast track."
So Max, are you still saying you support reauthorizing presidential "fast track" authority, all while you are stomping your feet in outrage about the South Korea deal? Or do you think maybe you might reconsider this inherently ridiculous behavior?
Please join the Progressive States Network, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Montana State Senator Jim Elliott and others Friday 3/16 at 1pm EST for this important conference call about the national state-based campaign to stop President Bush's request to reauthorize "fast track" trade authority - the authority that allows presidents to strip "free" trade deals of all labor, human rights and environmental standards. As you may have heard, a new ad campaign has launched in Montana against fast track in the wake of the Montana Senate's powerful anti-fast track resolution. This fight is just starting to heat up across the country. The call-in info is in the extended entry in the media advisory sent out by the Progressive States Network today.
I'm still in D.C., but it looks like radio ads are going up pushing for the Senior Senator to reject fast track authority. I'll get more on this if I can track it down (using a borrowed laptop to post this). In the meantime, anyone heard one of the ads?
[Baucus'] spokesman said Thursday that 13,000 Montana jobs depend on trade and the senator is looking for a new direction on trade policy.
"He wants to beef up labor and environmental standards, but don't forget that trade is an engine that drives Montana's main street economy and creates jobs," said Barrett Kaiser. (emphasis mine)
I am glad that Baucus is responding to the call from They Work for Us, but I am nervous that the "new direction" that he is looking at might just be political puffing. Luckily Barrett is a frequent reader and writer here, and maybe he could shed some light in comments or as a new diary, on what "new direction(s)" Baucus might be looking at for trade.
As I've said for a long, long time now, in the new Congress the battle is going to be fierce and nasty over "free" trade (read: trade deals that are filled with protectionist measures for corporate profits but free only of protections for human beings). Like forces preparing for war, we have seen in the last week the trenches being dug by both sides, and incredibly - when the congressional Democratic leadership isn't helping the K Street crowd dig its trench, it's preening around on the battlefield like a sitting duck. Here, in the extended entry, is the good, the bad and the ugly of the upcoming fight over "free" trade.
Update -- Read the full post below, but keep in mind that Senator Baucus's office did help coordinate what appears to be a smaller forum on trade with representatives of labor. At labor's panel, they limited it to two formal speakers, whereas business has five and a big long list of additional big shot attendees. No panels are currently planned for representatives from the conservation, family ag, or human rights communities.
Bloomberg Newsreported yesterday on the Montana Senate's passage of an anti-fast-track resolution. The article highlights the pressure brought to bear by the resolution's 44-6 passage in Montana with Max Baucus's historic support for fast track authority. Or, as they put it:
Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee Chairman, came under pressure from his own state legislature to oppose extending President George W. Bush's trade negotiating authority.
[...]
The trade authority expires at the end of June, and Baucus, who is up for re-election in 2008, has said he wants to work with the administration to revamp and extend it. Baucus agrees with the basic concerns of the Montana lawmakers, his spokeswoman Carol Guthrie said.
"Congress must change the way trade agreements are negotiated and approved," Guthrie said. "Trade can be a more powerful tool for creating jobs in this country, and the way you get there is by giving Congress a much bigger role to stand up for folks back home."
A much bigger role to stand up for folks involves an end to fast track authority. Fast track, by definition, is an exclusion of Congressional input and authority. It was heartening to see that Max is moving on this issue, which is why it was all the more disappointing to get sent a copy of the email I received this morning.
(This is going to be a very interesting issue to watch in coming weeks. So far, the Sidney weekly seems to be leading the press corps in coverage. We'll see if Noelle Straub or someone else tackles the fast track stuff happening at the federal level and track where Rehberg and Max will come down on it. - promoted by Matt Singer)
All successful movements understand the use of both the carrot and the stick. Today, the Progressive States Network, the Citizens Trade Campaign, and local labor/environmental/agriculture groups show what an effective stick looks like here in Montana, as they helped the Montana State Senate overwhelmingly pass a resolution demanding Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) use his chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee to reject President Bush's request for "fast track" trade authority. The full press release from the Progressive States Network is at the end of this post.
Make no mistake about it: the Senate resolution, authored by fair trade champion Sen. Jim Elliott (D-Trout Creek), is no small accomplishment: Baucus, by virtue of his chairmanship, is the single most powerful lawmaker in Congress when it comes to "free" trade, and "fast track" is the single most important "free" trade policy because it gives presidents the ability to ram lobbyist-written pacts through Congress without any labor, human rights or environmental standards. Additionally, Baucus used the very first day of his chairmanship to author an op-ed on the Wall Street Journal's right-wing editorial page demanding Congress support Bush's request for "fast track" reauthorization - a move that made K Street lobbyists cheer, but should make the rest of us retch.
As noted, the press release is in the extended entry. It will be interesting to see Baucus's reaction. In just the last week his language on trade seems to have changed - but whether that rhetorical shift means a policy shift is anyone's guess. This is, after all, the guy who traveled to India to give a speech trumpeting job outsourcing.
I'm headed up to the Capitol here in Helena this morning for a hearing on a resolution by State Sen. Jim Elliott (D) demanding that Montana's congressional delegation oppose President Bush's efforts to reauthorize "fast track" authority - the authority that lets presidents ram lobbyist-written trade deals through Congress. This resolution is particularly significant because Montana Sen. Max Baucus (D), as chair of the Finance Committee, is in a position to decide what happens to "fast track" in Congress. You may recall that in 2005, the legislature resoundingly passed a similar resolution against CAFTA, sponsored by Elliott and then State Senate President Jon Tester (who, as a U.S. Senator today, continues to make strong statements against our current unfair trade policy).
Baucus has said he wants to help Bush reauthorize "fast track" - a declaration that may make K Street happy, but is bad news for Montana small businesses, farmers and workers. Hopefully, this resolution will make him think twice. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: The Senate Labor Committee passed Elliott's resolution by a strong bipartisan vote of 9-2. Now the bill heads to the Senate floor.
David Sirota and Leo Hindery, a former CEO from the media world, have an op-ed today outlining the business case against fast track. It's not a complicated op-ed, but that's OK, because it's not a complicated concept:
The "good cop, bad cop" routine doesn't just make for good TV, it is also an important negotiating strategy in business and economics. The "good cop" can finesse the adversary and offer up deals and agreements -- while citing the "bad cop" as the reason he must stay firm. Unfortunately, when it comes to America's international trade policy, we have had only the "good cop" president as the negotiator -- and not enough of a "bad cop" in Congress, making sure our presidents hold the line on labor, human rights and environmental issues. The result has been a trade policy too freely giving away access to America's markets and contributing to the loss of millions of jobs.
[...]
If Congress is serious about reforming our trade policy so that it lifts both the American and the world economies, then lawmakers must refuse President Bush's request to extend fast-track authority. At the same time, Congress must enact legislation to separate trade negotiations from trade-agreement enforcement.
Refusing to reauthorize fast-track authority and strengthening trade-agreement enforcement is not anti-trade, just as protecting jobs is not protectionism. But what is assuredly anti-American worker are foreign-trade agreements without worker and environmental protections.
In business, the two-pronged, tag-team approach often wins at the negotiating table. Our Founding Fathers, who created the presidency and Congress as co-equal branches of government, likely understood that the same principle would eventually work well on the international stage.
I'm fairly confident that fast track will die in the House. With the change in control, the Senate is a stickier body, because the newly electeds are mostly populists who will no doubt oppose. I think some Republicans will cross the aisle -- Lindsey Graham comes to mind. But so far, Max is saying he still supports fast track (albeit with some minor changes).
There's a second business case to be made against fast track right now, which is that this Administration is proven they shouldn't be trusted to oversee a socket wrench, much less international trade policy or foreign wars. It's time for the Board of Directors (Congress) to intervene and show a heavier hand in managing the corporation (the government). That means not ceding more authority to this CEO (President) run amok.
