The new trade agreements

Senate strikes deal to pass fast-track trade bill
The agreement would give Democrats a chance to vote on two of their trade priorities as standalone bills.
By BURGESS EVERETT 5/13/15
Senate leaders have reached a deal to advance President Barack Obama’s trade initiative after a failed vote prompted a furious round of negotiating on Wednesday.
After trading offers throughout the night, party leaders agreed to vote on a fast-track trade bill that was blocked just 24 hours before by Democrats who’d wanted more assurances that their priorities would also be considered.

The agreement, announced by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on the Senate floor, would give Democrats a chance to vote on two of their trade priorities as standalone bills, in addition to the fast-track measure.
Holding the additional votes would “not imperil” the fast-track bill, McConnell said. Republicans, pro-trade Democrats and the president all say the Trade Promotion Authority measure, which would allow the president to expedite trade pacts through Congress, is vital for approving a huge Pacific Rim trade agreement currently being negotiated by the administration.

“We have to take some of these votes separately or we kill the underlying legislation,” McConnell said. “It’s reasonable. and I look forward to our colleagues from across the aisle joining with us.”
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who’d engineered Tuesday’s filibuster, thanked McConnell for locking in votes that Democrats had been pining for.
“I think we’ve come up with something that’s fair,” Reid said.
Though the agreement locks in votes on worker protections, it stops short of what Democrats were demanding on Tuesday: A guarantee they will become law by attaching them to the Trade Promotion Authority legislation.
Instead, a customs enforcement bill that includes currency manipulation language and the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which provides duty-free access for sub-Saharan African countries to sell many goods in the United States, will move by themselves.
After those are dispensed with on Thursday, the Senate will proceed to vote to open debate on a trade assistance bill intended to help U.S. workers affected by trade agreements and the fast-track package. That vote is expected to easily succeed now that party leaders have struck agreement.
But final passage won't come till next week, at the earliest. Senators from both parties are sure to offer amendments to the fast-track measure and the trade assistance bill, which will take days if not weeks to complete.

The horse-trading and was chewed over at party lunches and in private phone calls, after Republicans made a counter-offer to Reid and Democratic No. 3 Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The two powerful Democrats had floated a plan to vote on the bills as a single package, including the fast-track authority viewed as critical to Obama, but without a currency manipulation provision that could kill the bill in the House.
That was summarily rejected by Republicans as yet another attempt by Democrats to dictate Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s agenda after orchestrating a nearly unanimous filibuster on Tuesday aimed at extracting more concessions from the GOP.
“That’s not acceptable,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) in an interview. “We’re not willing to change that deal. Plus we’re not willing to let Democrats run the place. They seem to think that they’re still in the majority and that Sen. Reid is the majority leader. He is not.”
Republicans said they’ve already compromised with pro-trade Democrats by adding Trade Adjustment Assistance to the fast-track Trade Promotion Authority bill, so adding an African trade bill and a customs enforcement measure to the package— even without the poison pill currency language — was never going to fly.

Republicans privately predicted that a customs bill stripped of problematic currency manipulation language would easily pass the Senate, as would the African Growth and Opportunity Act. But the customs bill could still have trouble depending on how exactly language intend to crack down on currency cheaters is dealt with.
GOP sources said it was nearly assured that there would be one or more controversial votes aimed at cracking down on countries that manipulate their currency if there’s agreement to debate the trade bill. Many pro-trade lawmakers and White House officials believe it could lead to designating China as a currency manipulator and harm the emerging pact on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
GOP leaders were less interested in dealing with Reid and Schumer and tried to strike a deal with about 15 Democrats who could support the trade bills. But ultimately they were forced to deal with Reid and Schumer, who flexed their muscles during a stunning Tuesday vote that sent a message to the GOP that it would be impossible to move forward without their buy-in, even though they won’t ultimately support the trade bill.
“You have to remember, not everybody who’s making these proposals actually want us to pass TPA,” Cornyn said.

Though it may be impossible to finish the trade package this month given the need to renew highway and surveillance laws before Memorial Day, lawmakers are scrambling to produce a result before the recess. Pro-trade Democrats were summoned to the White House Tuesday afternoon after blocking the trade package, then met privately on Wednesday morning.
Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), perhaps the pivotal Democrat on trade, never stopped talking about a way to break the logjam, Wyden said in an interview, even after Hatch lambasted Wyden for changing the terms of their deal on trade assistance and fast-track.
“We have been working with Democrats and Republicans pretty much non-stop since yesterday,” Wyden said. “Failing on this is completely unacceptable.”
Hatch was less enthused, even after it was clear his cherished trade bill would move forward. The octogenarian told reporters the whole episode had nearly driven him mad.
“I’m about ready to kill somebody,” he said as he entered the Senate chamber to vote and hear the particulars of the agreement.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/trade-bill-standoff-senate-117900.html#ixzz3a3cm0daZ

So the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to knuckle under to big business and the rich and screw joe six pack. So much for government that helps everyone.

I was sure most of them would cave. What galls is, they didn't first extract anything of value to protect the American worker.

So what you are saying is that is was just a stupid PR move by the D's....AKA that only stupid people would fall for it.

Ya gotta love them D's.

To Ed's point that they did not get much if anything


http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/05/13/fast_track_part_two_deal_is_struck_to_allow_debate_on_tpp_bill_after_failed.html

For sure what the D's got does not help american labor one damn bit. But you can count on them to be in our face for the next year and a half telling us that they are our best friends and that we should vote for them

As I keep saying we havent had a liberal president for 35 years. Democratic dosent = liberal.

If Elizabeth Warren is correct about this trade bill, we are screwed for sure.

FRI MAY 15, 2015 AT 05:23 AM PDT
AFL-CIO chief Trumka says White House TPP Argument is Pure "Horse Waste"& Tells HRC to Make Stand
byPhoebe LoosinhouseFollow

More gloves coming off in the ongoing TPP debate as the head of the AFL-CIO Richard Trumka came out yesterday with some clear and understandable language about where Labor stands and what they are expecting from Democratic politicians in this fight.

Here are his words, courtesy of the Washington Post

"If the president wins this fight, Democrats will be in the minority for a decade or so" on Capitol Hill, Trumka said during a hour-long conversation at The Washington Post's offices. If Obama is seeking to build on his legacy with the TPP, Trumka added, "it will be the wrong legacy."
In sometimes colorful and pugilistic language, Trumka also took direct aim at one of the administration's key arguments on the trade bill. Democrats have called for tough provisions aimed at limiting other nations from manipulating their currency to artificially boost exports to the United States.

White House officials, Trumka said, have said such a provision is a non-starter in part because it could expose the United States to punitive actions if the U.S. Treasury enacts quantitative easing to stimulate the economy.

Trumka also said that Labor will be considering the way Dems vote on fast track a "major vote" on their scorecard and also made remarks that Hillary Clinton needs to take a definitive stance on the issue and advises her "you can't run, you can't hide".
All righty then. Thank you Richard Trumka for talking so clearly and directly and fighting as you should for American Labor.

Let's discuss his remarks and more below the orange squibble-doodle.



Note - The very first thing I will say in laying ground-rules for discussion in this diary in as much as I can, is that I will completely ignore the specious and disingenuous comments of those who opine that since we can't see the agreement, we can't discuss it. A major part of the controversy is that we can't see it. We have to rely on the comments and actions of those that have, as well as rely on the information, commentary and journalism available to us in the media.

I am not an expert on the currency manipulation aspects of the bill, but what I do know is that one of the bills that the Dems introduced in the Senate had to due with this aspect. Since they do have access to the bill and the USTR doing the negotiations, I think we assume on good authority that it is not addressed in the agreement currently. The President and the USTR (US Trade Representative) have said this is a non-starter and will derail the agreement.

Currency manipulation was cited as a reason that HRC said (through spokesperson Nick Merrill) that she might not support the agreement: stopping short of rejection, Clinton sets conditions for a trade deal. Date on that article is April 17th.

“She will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack down on currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect the environment and health, promote transparency, and open new opportunities for our small businesses to export overseas,” Mr. Merrill wrote. “As she warned in her book, ‘Hard Choices,’ we shouldn’t be giving special rights to corporations at the expense of workers and consumers.”
Well, it seems like the Senate agreed with Trumka and Clinton, because yesterday they passed a bill dealing with currency manipulation in trade agreements.
Senate passes bill targeting currency manipulators

The measure would force the Commerce Department to investigate allegations of ma­nipu­la­tion and determine offsetting import duties.
What I find interesting in that article is that the entire thing is talking about China, China's currency, China's past, present and possible future actions regarding its currency, and yet China is not even part of the TPP. This makes me think that China will join the pact in the future? Plus, can't any country with a fiat currency manipulate it? Someone more informed can take this on. But bottom line is that the Senate, by a wide margin rejected the President's arguments that no currency manipulation bill was required by a vote of 78-20 So I guess I would chalk that one up to Trumka.
I would like to segue here for a moment to President Obama's credibility to date on the TPP.

The reason the White House cited according to Trumka, for NOT addressing currency manipulation was that "it could expose the United States to punitive actions if the U.S. Treasury enacts quantitative easing to stimulate the economy."

That seems to me to be a direct contradiction to the President's stand in his argument with Elizabeth Warren that there was no way that the TPP could interfere with our own internal financial regulation. They were debating at the time whether the TPP could undermine Dodd-Frank, and the President by and large ridiculed Warren for even making the suggestion. But yet, right here in the discussion about currency manipulation, the White House is raising fears that the TPP could prevent us from implementing quantitative easing or face "punitive actions." So which way is, President Obama and "White House officials?" Do we open ourselves up to punitive actions or not? Why would it apply to quantitative easing and not Dodd Frank?

In another blow to the President's argument on how much trade agreements interfere with our internal financial agreements and which substantiates Warren and not Obama, the Canadians have just made the assertion that the Volker Rule part of Dodd Frank violates NAFTA! .

Canada's Finance Minister Says Volker Rule Violates NAFTA

The (US) Treasury spokeswoman said Nafta “does not weaken our ability to implement financial reforms now or in the future, and neither would any trade agreement we’re negotiating.” She said the law is intended to protect U.S. taxpayers and the stability of capital markets
NAFTA uses the same Investor State Dispute System that is enshrined under the TPP. Will we have to go to this international arbitration system in order to determine whether we have the right to implement the Volker rule in our own country? Will we be forced to compensate Canadians at taxpayer expense if their suit is upheld? According to the linked article, the NAFTA nations have an agreement not to extend their regulatory reach beyond their own borders but there is already a clear case where this did not happen and it involved Canada and the US.
Secret Trade Deal Serves Up Toxic Food, Advocates Charge

Barker pointed to case brought under the North American Free Trade Agreement by a U.S. company that made a gasoline additive that was banned in Canada. The firm argued that the law was "tantamount to expropriation," and Canada agreed to repeal its law and pay the Ethyl Corp. $13 million.
"The attorney for Ethyl said, ‘It wouldn’t matter if a substance was liquid plutonium destined for a child’s breakfast cereal. If the government bans a product and a U.S.-based company loses profits, the company can claim damages under NAFTA,’" Barker said.

Oh, about that toxic food stuff - read the article.
In conclusion I have a very simple question:

IF the TPP was going to be the source of increased exports and markets for our own products manufactured here in the USA, why in God's name would the AFL-CIO a LABOR organization be against it? Is it because they know very well that the TPP will just accelerate our rush to the bottom?

IMO, the TPP has very little to do with expanding American markets and exports and a lot more to do with expanding the AMERICAN market to evermore cheap imports that American labor and manufacturers cannot compete with.

I also ask very seriously, that if a foreign corporation opened some kind of facility in the US in some state or community and that state passed a $15 minimum wage law, what would stop that corporation for making a claim of "expropriated" profits and suing for damages due to the increased cost of labor? I believe, based on what I have read so far that that scenario is entirely plausible.

The single greatest, irremediable flaw IMO with ALL these recent trade agreements is the Investor State Dispute system which clearly DOES ALLOW foreign corporations to interefere with and meddle and overturn regulations and legislation of host countries which have been enacted by host companies even when the issues being arbitrated are concerning the public health and safety and environmental protections.

We cannot allow our elected representatives enable foreign corporations to extract protection money from US taxpayers in the form of expropriated lost profits so that they won't poison and impoverish us. We also cannot allow them to dictate the terms of our internal financial regulation and oversight.

ANY nation that cedes it's own sovereignty and right to regulate itself to multi-national corporations in these regards is clinically insane and suicidal. In my opinion.

TAGS

I don't know much about this kind of stuff but I have been following this thread since it's conception and haven't commented because, well, I wondered why Obama and Hillary when she was secretary of state was for it if it so bad as I have been hearing.

I found this on another board, it struck me as being so cynical as to be true.

Why is Obama flip flopping on renegotiating the trade agreements?

This isn't about free trade. It's about destroying countries' ability to create new financial regulations and minimum wage laws. It's about giving oil companies the right to sue any level of government that denies them an offshore drilling permit.

Like I said, I don't know too much about it, from what I have been reading, you are correct in that is the issue of disagreement from opponents of this deal, if true, the opponents are right to be opposed. However, in the end, what if we didn't sign on because of those issues, would we in fact loose millions of money in the process? Wouldn't that put us as a country in a weakened position?

Perhaps if those issues could be worked out before the final agreements are struck, but I don't think it would be good for the US to be left out and so loose all those customers and products from other countries.

THe holders of capital (which I assert always belongs to the collective, that is is only on loan to individuals) work tirelessly to undermine those who actually do the work. THis is with the consent of those in Washington, both parties. Not the parties, not SCOTUS, not anyone else looks out for us.

Well oddly enough, voters seem to support it now more than they did, that may change.

Obama’s Trade Mission Makes Headway With Democratic Voters

This is from August of 2013
http://ourfuture.org/20130823/congress-public-waking-up-to-tpp-threat?gclid=CIzdpcHtxsUCFRJqfgod-gkAoQ

Not Really A “Trade’ Treaty”

The TPP agreement is being negotiated — in secret, even from Congress — between representatives of governments and giant, multinational corporations. (Government negotiators are not prevented from seeking lucrative corporate jobs if negotiations are completed in favor of those corporations.) Groups representing the interests of labor, environmental, consumer, human rights or other stakeholders in democracy are not at the negotiating table. And, not surprisingly, it appears that the agreement will promote the interests of giant, multinational corporations over the interests of labor, environmental, consumer, human rights or other stakeholders in democracy.

Negotiated in secret, what we know about the treaty comes from leaks. Only a few of the “chapters” of the agreement are actually about “trade” at all. The rest are about the “rights” of corporations and investors. Negotiated just as the worldwide democracy uprising threatens to reign in corporate interests, the agreement will limit governments’ ability to write banking regulations, energy policy, food safety standards and even government purchasing decisions. It will allow corporations and investors to sue governments for lost profits if the governments try to make and enforce environmental, labor and other laws.

Congress Waking Up

The corporations are asking Congress to pass “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority. This would mean Congress yields its authority and duties under the Constitution, and just has a rushed up-or-down vote on whatever is presented to them. So this will be about which legislators the giant corporations own, and which they do not. (Of course this vote will occur during a major corporate-funded PR campaign that will rival the propaganda “run-up” to the Iraq war vote.)

Some members of Congress are circulating letters opposing “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority and are getting plenty of signatures from the “left” and the “right.”

Last week conservative House Republicans Michele Bachmann and Walter Jones joined Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro began gathering signatures of both Democratic and Republican members of Congress on letters opposing granting “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority. They complain that Congress has not played their Constitutionally-mandated part in shaping this deal, and Fast Track removes their Constitutional authority to review and amend any such agreement.

In June 2/3 of newly-elected Democratic members of Congress warned against passing “Fast Track.” Also in June 230 members of Congress signed a letter asking that TPP address currency manipulation.

Last year many members of Congress signed letters objecting to the secrecy of the negotiations.

Representative Alan Grayson has been all over this. he has penned posts, held meetings, sent emails, done radio show, and all kinds of other things to warn the public and rally opposition to TPP.

Democratic voters support it because Obama supports it. Republican voters support because the congressional GOP leaders do. We're helpless sheep. (I say "we" because I would probably support it too if Warren and Sanders did.)

EDIT -- And the reason those politicians support it, to the extent that they do, is that their campaign money has to come from somewhere.

Forgive me but, as far as I know Obama is not running for anything in which he will need campaign money. I am not sure why he is so much for it to the point of having his impassioned speeches and interviews if the agreement was just for corporations benefit. I mean at the this point in time, what does he get out it if he doesn't really believe in it?

I'm not sure what he gets out of it. (Maybe it makes his successor likelier to get elected, which he's partisan enough to care about.) I was mainly thinking about the Senate Democrats in my edit, though.

Than your OK with foreign corporations forcing congress to change our laws by suing us because those laws impact their bottom line? Because as I understand it, not being able to study the secret negotiations, that what we are agreeing to and you and I have to pay, not the corporations involved.