Congress hasn't had much to celebrate in a year dominated by bitter spending battles and partisan dysfunction. So lawmakers from both parties are heralding the pending passage of a major free-trade package as a victory - and a sign that Washington isn't entirely broken.

Yet bridging the political divide between business and labor over three stalled trade deals has been a rare feat of bipartisanship. And it's not necessarily a harbinger of greater compromise to come.

In fact, some say - save for a possible deal to cut the deficit this year - the trade package may be the last significant bipartisan effort until after the 2012 elections.

Under the pact, President Barack Obama has promised to send Congress trade deals with Colombia, Panama and South Korea once lawmakers renew aid for U.S. workers hurt by overseas competition. The Senate last month overwhelmingly voted to extend the aid, though the House has yet to act.

"This trade opportunity may be the exception to the rule that this is a Senate that is only doing what absolutely is mandated by crisis," Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who helped rally GOP support for the deal, told POLITICO.

Indeed, it seems all that lawmakers have been doing these days is reacting to government crises. Last spring, Congress narrowly averted a government shutdown by passing a stopgap measure at the eleventh hour, an exercise repeated just last week. And this past summer, lawmakers staved off a debt default that would have had catastrophic consequences for the economic recovery.

Since then, Congress has labored to keep the Federal Aviation Administration running, continue highway construction projects and provide emergency money for disaster relief.

Expanding foreign trade is one issue that most Democrats and Republicans support. But that's not to say trade policy hasn't seen its share of political gamesmanship.

The three trade agreements, negotiated during the George W. Bush administration, have been tied up in partisan wrangling since Obama took office in January 2009. And earlier this summer, Republicans balked at Democrats' demands that worker aid be linked to the trade deals until Senate leaders agreed to move the aid bill before taking up the trade deals.

Moreover, there are still those seeking to scuttle parts of the trade package: Republicans like John McCain say the country can ill afford the nearly $1 billion, three-year aid extension brokered by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.). Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wants the House to vote on a bill cracking down on China currency manipulation before the trade deals.

And the AFL-CIO and Rust Belt Democrats, including Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, have warned that the trade deals will be harmful to American manufacturers and will kill jobs.

Casey has pointed to a report by the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute, which found that the 1994 North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement created a trade deficit with Mexico and eliminated 680,000 U.S. jobs, including 26,300 jobs in Pennsylvania.

"We have a textbook case about what happened after NAFTA," Casey said. "States like Pennsylvania should inform our thinking on these three trade deals."

But for most in Washington, the trade issue is good politics.

Members of both parties believe these agreements will create jobs at a time of 9 percent unemployment and economic stagnation. And Obama, touting his jobs plan around the country, views the accords as a step toward his goal of doubling U.S. exports to $2 trillion by 2015.

The South Korea trade deal, America's largest since NAFTA, would boost U.S. exports by up to $10.9 billion, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission. The deal even won a halfhearted endorsement from the United Auto Workers, though most labor groups oppose the trade agreements.

"The president's own metrics show that [these deals] would create 200,000 jobs," said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who served as George W. Bush's U.S. trade representative. "And when you look at the options right now on the menu of policy proposals, this comes to the top because it is a job creator both Republicans and Democrats can agree on."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who caucuses with Democrats, said he's part of an informal bipartisan coalition on Capitol Hill that recognizes "trade brings jobs to the U.S."

"I know it doesn't help everybody, but the net is always positive," he told POLITICO. "If you're making things here and selling them overseas, you're sustaining jobs."

To gauge support for the package, look no further than a September roll call. By a 70-27 vote, the Senate passed legislation renewing stimulus funding for workers' retraining and aid through the end of 2013.

Seventeen Republicans joined all 53 Democrats in backing the measure, even as the GOP has railed against the 2009 stimulus as ineffective. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a staunch GOP ally, has called for the quick passage of the trade and aid package as well.

If Obama makes good on his promise to submit and sign the trade deals, some believe it could help rebuild trust between Democrats and Republicans, especially as the bipartisan congressional supercommittee enters a crucial stage in negotiations to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit this year.

Obama's goal is to get the three trade deals and workers' aid extension, known as Trade Adjustment Assistance, "signed into law as soon as possible," said one administration official.

But trust between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is fragile, and one sticking point remains. Boehner wants the president to submit the trio of trade deals to Congress so he can pass them "in tandem" with the aid bill this month. Obama has signaled he'll send up the deals as soon as the House signs off on the workers' aid.

"There is a real lack of confidence in the White House's willingness to follow through on their promises because we've seen goal posts moved repeatedly this spring and summer," said one GOP senator involved in the trade talks. "Republicans have taken large steps towards compromise in pushing TAA through the Senate. Now, we need the White House to follow that up with their own step forward."

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has worked across the aisle on legislation to cap spending and is part of a bipartisan group of three dozen senators urging the supercommittee to "go big" and cut at least $4 trillion over the next decade. But he's skeptical the trade pact will open the door to greater cooperation between the two parties, especially with the 2012 election right around the corner.

"I wish I could say this was a trend, and obviously I'm someone who wants to see our country move ahead," Corker told POLITICO. "But I think until we begin to get serious proposals from this administration to deal with this nation's biggest issues, that's likely not to be the case.

"It's a shame the presidential political season started as early as it did, and I think [bipartisanship] may not be a trend between now and Election Day," he added. "I'm hopeful we'll do something real on the deficit and after that, I'd say it's lights out."

Added Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), a member of the Democrat-Republican Gang of Six: Bipartisanship "is alive, but I'm not sure that it's well."