<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=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/clinton-decision-complicates-tpp-path-to-approval-214543" style="color: purple;" class="">http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/clinton-decision-complicates-tpp-path-to-approval-214543</a><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><h1 style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 24pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Clinton defection complicates trade pact’s path<o:p class=""></o:p></h1><p class="subhead" style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">An endorsement from Clinton would have given wary Democrats political cover to vote for the TPP.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="byline" style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">By <span class="vcard"><a href="http://www.politico.com/staff/doug-palmer" target="_top" style="color: purple;" class="">Doug Palmer</a></span> and <span class="vcard"><a href="http://www.politico.com/staff/adam-behsudi" target="_top" style="color: purple;" class="">Adam Behsudi</a></span><o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="updated" style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Updated 10/07/15 09:08 PM EDT <o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">The Obama administration’s uphill battle to win congressional support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement got tougher Wednesday after Hillary Clinton, a former administration official who once embraced the deal, came out against it.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Clinton’s defection means the White House will have to work even harder to keep a handful of Democrats on board for the pact and could give Republicans more leverage to press concerns about details of the agreement that they oppose.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">"As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it," the former secretary of State told "PBS NewsHour," only two days after officials completed negotiations on the pact and before the full text has been released. "I don't believe it's going to meet the high bar I have set."<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">A strong endorsement from Clinton would have given wary Democrats political cover to vote for the agreement, especially in the House, where members are under intense pressure from labor and environmental groups to oppose it. The trade promotion authority bill allowing Obama to complete the deal was barely approved this summer on a 218-208 vote, with only 28 Democrats voting "yes."<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Any additional desertions mean the White House will have to rely more heavily on Republicans.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">The administration expects to have a sufficient margin of support in the Senate after that chamber approved fast-track authority on a 60-37 vote this summer. The vote on the pact will happen under special rules requiring a simple majority vote, rather than a 60-vote threshold, with no filibusters or amendments allowed.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, chairman of the New Democrat Coalition, who helped round up Democratic votes for fast-track authority, suggested Clinton's decision was an effort to better position herself in an increasingly competitive Democratic nomination race. That echoes a charge the White House made against Republicans who criticized the Iran nuclear deal almost as soon as it was complete.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""> “We know Democratic primary politics can be difficult on trade,” said Kind, one of the 28 House Democrats who voted in support of trade promotion authority. “But, to be fair to the president, I would hope everyone would first read the agreement before passing judgment on the agreement.”<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Liberal groups, meanwhile, seized on Clinton's decision to try to squeeze the small group of pro-trade Democrats who supported fast-track authority.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">“The president will be asking Democrats in Congress to walk the plank by voting for a deal written by big corporations for big corporations with the explicit goal of undermining American laws, workers, communities and the environment," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Committee. "Hillary Clinton rightly indicated she does not desire to walk that plank."<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Clinton's decision drew a rebuke from House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan, who had himself criticized earlier versions of the agreement for the lack of access to Canada’s dairy market for milk and cheese producers in his state. “I’m a little surprised that someone seeking the presidency would cavalierly dismiss a trade agreement that they haven’t even had the chance to read,” the Wisconsin Republican said on Chuck Todd’s "MTP Daily."<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">The White House has tried to shore up support on the left by negotiating what it calls the strongest labor and environmental provisions of any trade agreement in history. But Clinton criticized the administration’s failure to include rules against currency manipulation in the agreement and also expressed concern that big pharmaceutical companies would benefit more from the agreement than patients and consumers. She also repeated she could only support a TPP deal that creates jobs, raises wages and boosts national security. <o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Many labor and progressive groups praised her decision, which they said would help their efforts to block the deal.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">“America’s working people are very pleased that Sen. Clinton is opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO labor federation. “I applaud her for taking this step and choosing to embrace workers’ values. Her decision is a critical turning point, and will be invaluable in our effort to defeat TPP.”<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">But Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council and senior trade official under Bill Clinton, was skeptical that Clinton's stance would play any significant role in the congressional battle.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">“If you’re a member in Nebraska, Hillary doesn’t vote in Nebraska, Trump doesn’t vote in Nebraska. Cattlemen vote in Nebraska and they’ll be a lot more concerned about what the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association says about TPP," he said.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Clinton promoted the mammoth agreement while secretary of State, but has backed away from the agreement since announcing her candidacy in April. Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has rocketed in the polls, based in part on his opposition to the TPP.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">A White House official confirmed the Clinton campaign gave it a heads-up today that the announcement was coming, but declined further comment. The administration has already begun the job of trying to sell the agreement to both Democrats and Republicans in anticipation of a vote as soon as next March or April.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">“There are a number of reasons why Democrats in Congress would support a trade agreement like this, and we certainly will make that case to a number of Democrats on Capitol Hill,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the regular daily briefing.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">He also drew a comparison to this summer’s intense fight over trade promotion authority, which passed both the House and the Senate despite intense opposition from many Democrats.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">“The fact is, despite that opposition, the president did succeed in building a bipartisan majority in both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate to secure the passage of that legislation,” Earnest said. “And so we certainly are hopeful that Democrats will remain open to the strong case that we have to make on TPP, but we understand that that’s something that we’re going to have to work for.”<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Clinton telegraphed her decision by coming out against the Keystone XL pipeline, another project opposed by most progressive groups, said one Senate aide, who was doubtful her opposition to the TPP would persuade the 13 Senate Democrats who voted for trade promotion authority to vote against the trade deal. <o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Some Republican aides also played down the impact, noting her quick decision indicated it was based more on political calculus than the substance of the agreement.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Still, a powerful Republican — Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah — continues to express deep reservations about the pact, especially provisions affecting intellectual property rights for biologics, a new class of life-saving medicines. That could prompt the administration to revisit some issues as it tries to finalize the text of the pact over the next 30 days.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">“I ... have been urging officials in the administration to do all they can to conclude a TPP agreement that a majority in Congress can support,” Hatch said in a speech on the Senate floor. “Unfortunately, when we look at some of the outcomes of the final round of negotiations, it’s not clear if the administration achieved that goal.”<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class="">Hatch also raised concern about potentially inadequate agriculture market access provisions and "overreaching" labor commitments, as well as a “carve-out” provision that would bar companies from challenging tobacco control measures that negatively affect their investment in overseas markets.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>