<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><a href="http://thehill.com/policy/finance/242076-senate-approves-trade-enforcement-measure" class="">http://thehill.com/policy/finance/242076-senate-approves-trade-enforcement-measure</a><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><h1 class="title" id="page-title" style="font-size: 39px; line-height: 1; margin: 0px; font-family: proxima-nova, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Senate approves trade enforcement measure</h1><div class="clearer" style="clear: both; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;"></div><article class="view-mode-full node node-242076 node-article clearfix" about="/policy/finance/242076-senate-approves-trade-enforcement-measure" typeof="sioc:Item foaf:Document" style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;"><div class="clearfix"></div></article></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><p style="margin: 15px 0px; font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">The Senate took an initial step toward picking up President Obama’s trade agenda on Thursday by approving a controversial customs bill that includes language cracking down on currency manipulation by trading partners.</p><p style="margin: 15px 0px; font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">The legislation was easily approved. The vote was still taking place when this story was published, but it stood at 67-19 with several senators yet to vote. Under rules adopted for the vote, 60 votes were needed for the measure to pass.</p><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">Democrats had demanded a vote on the bill in exchange for supporting a later vote that would allow the Senate to begin debate on fast-track trade legislation, a key legislative priority for Obama. That vote is scheduled for 2 p.m.</span><p style="margin: 15px 0px; font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">Supporters of the currency manipulation language frame the customs bill as a trade enforcement measure, and the vote gives some cover for Democrats who want to back fast-track.</p><p style="margin: 15px 0px; font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">It’s unclear, however, whether the customs bill will be picked up by the House. The Obama administration also doesn’t support the measure. It warned ahead of the vote on Thursday that the currency provisions “raise highly problematic questions” about if the legislation would violate current international trade agreements, though it stopped short of a veto threat. </p><p style="margin: 15px 0px; font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">The fast-track legislation would allow Obama to send a trade pact he is negotiating with Asian and Latin American countries to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Congress would not be able to amend the legislation under fast-track.</p><p style="margin: 15px 0px; font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">Unions and other liberal groups have launched a heavy lobbying and public relations campaign to defeat it. Earlier in the week, Senate Democrats voted against moving to the fast-track bill, demanding that the customs legislation be added to the package.</p><p style="margin: 15px 0px; font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">After a wave of headlines highlighting the fight between Obama and Democrats, a deal was reached on Wednesday in which the customs bill was given a separate vote.</p><p style="margin: 15px 0px; font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), one of fast-track’s fiercest opponents, argued that in adopting the customs bill, the Senate was taking an “empathetic voice” on trade.</p><p style="margin: 15px 0px; font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">“The simple message: We cannot have trade promotion without trade enforcement,” he said. “We shouldn't be passing agreements while doing nothing, which the Senate tried to do on Tuesday.”</p><p style="margin: 15px 0px; font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">The bill increases the likelihood that penalties could be imposed on trading partners who engage in currency manipulation, which can lower the value of products and make them more competitive as exports.</p><p style="margin: 15px 0px; font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">Republicans were under pressure to oppose the customs bill.</p><p style="margin: 15px 0px; font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">The Club for Growth, a conservative outside group, said ahead of the vote that it would include the customs vote as part of its congressional scorecard. </p><p style="margin: 15px 0px; font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">“Our largest objection to this bill is the currency language that was added during the committee markup conducted earlier this year,” <a href="http://www.clubforgrowth.org/key-votes/key-vote-alert-no-on-customs-bill-hr-644/?utm_source=Key+Votes&utm_campaign=90e17438c2-Key+Vote+Alert+-+Final+Debt+Deal&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_791acdf2b6-90e17438c2-256116361" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 102); text-decoration: none; outline: none; font-weight: bold;" class="">the group said</a>. “This new language would designate currency manipulation as a prohibited export subsidy, and thus, allow the government to take remedial action against the foreign country in question.”</p><p style="margin: 15px 0px; font-size: 15px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;" class="">Senators also voted 97-1 to pass a non-controversial package package of trade preferences for sub-Saharan Africa. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) was the only no vote.</p></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>