Well this is interesting.  On the day of a massive series of votes on Iraq and the day after a DoD Authorization mark-up in which habeas was struck, there's a huge press conference announcing a bipartisan free trade deal with increased labor and environmental standards.  Labor is flipping out, apparently unsure of what to do.  I've made three or four calls and the details are somewhat murky.  One person I spoke with was Peter Chandler of Congressman Mike Michaud's office.  Michaud signed a letter that someone else slipped to me from six Democrats (the others are Allen, Ryan, Kildee, Hare, Linda Sanchez) asking for an internal caucus discussion of an impending deal.  Forty minutes after they sent this letter came the press conference.  

Peter had a number of interesting things to say.  Now I've pointed out before that one key in these trade deals is the language on labor and environmental provisions.  In 1989, during the Fast Track discussion, corporate Democrats promised to uphold labor and environmental standards, and instead we got NAFTA.  So there's not a lot of credibility here, especially if this gets linked to the immigration issue and especially since it's George W. Bush who's cutting the deal.  Peter told me that no one except the people in the room had seen the language, so the caucus at large is not ok with it yet.  He's suspicious because a big announcement is made suddenly with the Republican leadership on Ways and Means, and Democratic caucus members have very little information about it.  Fair Trade Democrats wanted to be partners in the effort to make sure the new deal is a complete departure from the NAFTA trade deal, but they were apparently boxed out by leadership, including Rangel.  I heard from a someone less reliable source that Rangel promised labor they would have a chance to see the language in the agreement and discuss it before an announcement, but that didn't happen.  

There are a lot of murky details, and more is going to come out.  But let's just look at who was in the room for the announcement.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab
Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus
House Ways & Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel
House Ways & Means Ranking Member Jim McCrery
New Democrat Coalition Leadership:
Rep. Ellen Tauscher, Chair, New Democrat Coalition
Rep. Adam Smith. Vice-Chair, New Democrat Coalition
Rep. Ron Kind, Vice-Chair, New Democrat Coaltion
Rep. Artur Davis, Vice-Chair, New Democrat Coalition
Rep. Joe Crowley, Vice-Chair and Whip, New Democrat Coaltion

There are a number of reasons I'm deeply suspicious of leadership and Rangel on this deal.  First of all, that list is a clear indication of corporate Democrats in control of the policy.  There are a number of Republicans who will split from their party on the deal, people like Duncan Hunter who viciously opposed NAFTA years ago.  More problematic is the timing.  Why in the world, if there was caucus cohesion, would Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel make a surprise announcement on the day of a huge Iraq vote, one that is sure to mop up all the headlines?

Next Tuesday at the caucus meeting, culturally conservative, midwestern, and most progressive Democrats are going to discuss this with corporate and coastal Democrats.  Lots of freshmen campaigned against the corporate trade deals, but the power of corporate America is immense.

The question right now is what the language says.  If it's not ironclad on labor and the environment, and if it doesn't allow workers the same rights as corporations to sue to harmonize labor laws in America, then it's a serious problem.  And frankly, I just can't see giving more power to Bush in a way that puts clear labor and environmental standards front and center.  This will in all likelihood put pressure on Presidential campaigns.  The only candidate clearly on the populist bandwagon on trade is Edwards.  Both Clinton and Obama have managed to skate around the issue, but this is going to put it front and center (check out one of Obama's key advisors on trade).

There's a lot that I don't know.  Speaker Pelosi is good at managing her caucus, so it's quite possible she has a firm grip on where her members actually are.  But then again, the Fair Trade tension is something the New Democrats aren't used to, and they might be assuming there's less opposition than there really is.  The same deal on Iraq works here - people hate Bush and everything he does, and if he's behind this deal then the public is going to be (rightly) suspicious.  And I don't think that the Democratic leadership has fully internalized how much the public hates Bush.

Regardless, this is something to pay attention to.  It's one of those deals where bloggers may actually have some leverage, since this is very murky and cooperating with Bush is something we should be extremely wary of.