Saturday, April 18, 2015

Stop Fast-Track on Pacific Trade Deal


Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for Obama on Trade Accord, Posted on April 18, 2015 Written by nytimes.com
WASHINGTON — Key con­gres­sional lead­ers agreed on Thurs­day on leg­is­la­tion to give Pres­i­dent Obama spe­cial author­ity to fin­ish nego­ti­at­ing one of the world’s largest trade accords, open­ing a rare bat­tle that aligns the pres­i­dent with Repub­li­cans against a broad coali­tion of Democrats.
In what is sure to be one of the tough­est fights of Mr. Obama’s last 19 months in office, the “fast track” bill allow­ing the White House to pur­sue its planned Pacific trade deal also her­alds a divi­sive fight within the Demo­c­ra­tic Party, one that could spill into the 2016 pres­i­den­tial campaign.
With com­mit­tee votes planned next week, lib­eral sen­a­tors such as Sher­rod Brown of Ohio are demand­ing to know Hillary Rod­ham Clinton’s posi­tion on the bill to give the pres­i­dent so-called trade pro­mo­tion author­ity, or T.P.A.
Trade unions, envi­ron­men­tal­ists and Latino orga­ni­za­tions — potent Demo­c­ra­tic con­stituen­cies — quickly lined up in oppo­si­tion, argu­ing that past trade pacts failed to deliver on their promise and that the lat­est effort would harm Amer­i­can workers.
The deal was struck by Sen­a­tors Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the Finance Com­mit­tee chair­man; Ron Wyden of Ore­gon, the committee’s rank­ing Demo­c­rat; and Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Paul D. Ryan, Repub­li­can of Wis­con­sin and chair­man of the House Ways and Means Com­mit­tee. It would give Con­gress the power to vote on the more encom­pass­ing 12-nation Trans-Pacific Part­ner­ship once it is com­pleted, but would deny law­mak­ers the chance to amend what would be the largest trade deal since the North Amer­i­can Free Trade Agree­ment of 1994, which Pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton pushed through Con­gress despite oppo­si­tion from labor and other Demo­c­ra­tic constituencies.
While sup­port­ers have promised broad gains for Amer­i­can con­sumers and the econ­omy, the clear­est win­ners of the Trans-Pacific Part­ner­ship agree­ment would be Amer­i­can agri­cul­ture, along with tech­nol­ogy and phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies, insur­ers and many large man­u­fac­tur­ers that say they could also expand United States’ exports to the other 11 nations in Asia and South Amer­ica that are involved.
Pres­i­dent Obama embraced the leg­is­la­tion imme­di­ately, pro­claim­ing “it would level the play­ing field, give our work­ers a fair shot, and for the first time, include strong fully enforce­able pro­tec­tions for work­ers’ rights, the envi­ron­ment and a free and open Internet.”
“Today,” he added, “we have the oppor­tu­nity to open even more new mar­kets to goods and ser­vices backed by three proud words: Made in America.”
But Mr. Obama’s enthu­si­asm was tem­pered by the ran­cor the bill elicited from some of his strongest allies. To win over the key Demo­c­rat, Mr. Wyden, the Repub­li­cans agreed to strin­gent require­ments for the deal, includ­ing a human rights nego­ti­at­ing objec­tive that has never existed on trade agreements.
The bill would make any final trade agree­ment open to pub­lic com­ment for 60 days before the pres­i­dent signs it, and up to four months before Con­gress votes. If the agree­ment, nego­ti­ated by the United States trade rep­re­sen­ta­tive, fails to meet the objec­tives laid out by Con­gress — on labor, envi­ron­men­tal and human rights stan­dards — a 60-vote major­ity in the Sen­ate could shut off “fast-track” trade rules and open the deal to amendment.
“We got assur­ances that U.S.T.R. and the pres­i­dent will be nego­ti­at­ing within the para­me­ters defined by Con­gress,” said Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Dave Reichert, Repub­li­can of Wash­ing­ton and a senior mem­ber of the Ways and Means Com­mit­tee. “And if those para­me­ters are some­how or in some way vio­lated dur­ing the nego­ti­a­tions, if we get a prod­uct that’s not adher­ing to the T.P.A. agree­ment, than we have switches where we can cut it off.”
To fur­ther sweeten the deal for Democ­rats, the pack­age includes expand­ing trade adjust­ment assis­tance — aid to work­ers whose jobs are dis­placed by global trade — to ser­vice work­ers, not just man­u­fac­tur­ing work­ers. Mr. Wyden also insisted on a four-year exten­sion of a tax credit to help dis­placed work­ers pur­chase health insurance.
Both the Finance and Ways and Means com­mit­tees will for­mally draft the leg­is­la­tion next week in hopes of get­ting it to final votes before a wave of oppo­si­tion can sweep it away. “If we don’t act now we will lose our oppor­tu­nity,” Mr. Hatch said.
At a Sen­ate Finance Com­mit­tee hear­ing Thurs­day morn­ing, Jacob J. Lew, the Trea­sury sec­re­tary, and Michael Fro­man, the United States trade rep­re­sen­ta­tive, pleaded for the trade pro­mo­tion authority.
“T.P.A. sends a strong sig­nal to our trad­ing part­ners that Con­gress and the admin­is­tra­tion speak with one voice to the rest of the world on our pri­or­i­ties,” Mr. Lew tes­ti­fied.
Even with the con­ces­sions, many Democ­rats sound deter­mined to oppose the pres­i­dent. Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Sander Levin of Michi­gan, the rank­ing Demo­c­rat on the House Ways and Means Com­mit­tee, con­demned the bill as “a major step backward.”
The A.F.L.-C.I.O. and vir­tu­ally every major union — con­vinced that trade pro­mo­tion author­ity will ease pas­sage of trade deals that will cost jobs and depress already stag­nant wages — have vowed a fierce fight. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. announced a “mas­sive” six-figure adver­tis­ing cam­paign to pres­sure 16 selected sen­a­tors and 36 House mem­bers to oppose fast-track authority.
“We can’t afford to pass fast track, which would lead to more lost jobs and lower wages,” said Richard Trumka, pres­i­dent of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. “We want Con­gress to keep its lever­age over trade nego­ti­a­tions — not rubber-stamp a deal that deliv­ers prof­its for global cor­po­ra­tions, but not good jobs for work­ing people.”
In all, the bill sets down 150 nego­ti­at­ing objec­tives, such as tough new rules on intel­lec­tual prop­erty pro­tec­tion, low­er­ing of bar­ri­ers to agri­cul­tural exports, labor and envi­ron­men­tal stan­dards, rule of law and human rights. Reflect­ing the mod­ern econ­omy, Con­gress would demand a loos­en­ing of restric­tions on cross-border data flow, an end to cur­rency manip­u­la­tion and rules for com­pe­ti­tion from state-owned enterprises.
Busi­nesses and busi­ness lob­by­ing groups lined up behind the bill as fast as lib­eral groups and unions arrayed in oppo­si­tion. “With facts and argu­ments, we’ll win this trade debate and renew T.P.A.,” vowed Thomas J. Dono­hue, pres­i­dent of the U.S. Cham­ber of Commerce.
It all made for a dizzy­ing change of tone in a Wash­ing­ton where par­ti­san lines have hard­ened. Repub­li­can lead­er­ship fell firmly behind T.P.A. Busi­ness groups bat­tling the pres­i­dent on cli­mate change, taxes and health care urged Con­gress to expand his trade powers.
But a siz­able minor­ity of Repub­li­cans — espe­cially in the House — are reluc­tant to give the pres­i­dent author­ity to do any­thing sub­stan­tive. Whether Repub­li­can lead­ers can get their troops in line, and how Mr. Obama can round up enough Demo­c­ra­tic votes, might be the biggest leg­isla­tive ques­tion of the year.
Mr. Reichert, the Repub­li­can law­maker, said 20 or fewer Democ­rats cur­rently sup­port the mea­sure in the House; last year, House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio said he would need 50.
Sen­a­tor Charles E. Schumer of New York, the third-ranking Demo­c­rat, said he will demand the inclu­sion of leg­is­la­tion to com­bat the manip­u­la­tion of cur­rency val­ues, espe­cially by China. “China is the most rapa­cious of our trad­ing part­ners, and the stated goal of this deal is to lure these other coun­tries away from China,” Mr. Schumer said. “It’s not at all con­tra­dic­tory to finally do some­thing with China’s awful trade practices.”
Mr. Brown said the nego­ti­at­ing objec­tives must be turned into solid require­ments. “I don’t think nego­ti­at­ing objec­tives with­out more enforce­ment mech­a­nisms get you very far,” he said. “Nego­ti­at­ing objec­tives are, ‘Hey U.S.T.R., try to get this,’ and they’ll say, ‘We tried.’ We need some­thing bet­ter than that.”
Oth­ers appeared dead set against the accord.
“Over and over again we’ve been told that trade deals will cre­ate jobs and bet­ter pro­tect work­ers and the envi­ron­ment,” said Sen­a­tor Bob Casey, Demo­c­rat of Penn­syl­va­nia. “Those promises have never come to fruition.”

Related Posts

at

No comments:

Post a Comment