Senate Finance Committee panel approves the TPA "Trade" Bill on a 20-6 Vote

[KoKo]

Senate panel approves trade bill
The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday approved a bill that would streamline passage of global trade deals through Congress.

The panel approved, on an 20-6 vote, a long-awaited trade promotion authority (TPA) measure with the support of seven Democrats, sending the measure to the Senate floor, where it will face another tough test in the coming weeks.

The Democrats who voted to approve were Sens. Ron Wyden (Ore.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Tom Carper (Del.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.).

The lone Republican to oppose was Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.).

In the most contentious vote of the day, Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) lost their bid — on an 11-15 vote — to include an amendment in the legislation that would have required the White House to include enforceable currency manipulation provisions in international trade agreements.

Five Democrats — Cantwell, Nelson, Carper, Bennet and Warner — and 10 Republicans opposed the amendment.

Portman, a former U.S. trade representative, said the amendment was needed because the “playing field is tilted against us” and it would “allow our workers to compete.”

Stabenow argued the Obama administration’s process is “just not enough” to convince countries to make faster progress toward market-driven exchange rates.

After markup, Portman said he will make another attempt at passing the rule in floor debate.

The White House has argued that requiring the addition of currency provisions would derail negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and likely jeopardize its passage in Congress.

A Treasury official told the panel the department is “very concerned” adding currency rules to a fast-track measure would be counterproductive and possibly disrupt continuing negotiations.

“We have serious concerns about the inclusion of enforceable currency provisions in this or any trade agreement,” Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday afternoon.

Lew has repeatedly asked Congress to tread lightly in pushing for provisions that could, in the end, do more to hurt U.S. workers than help.

“Enforceable currency disciplines would impair our already-successful efforts addressing currency practices through our bilateral and multilateral engagement and could grant other countries a legal basis to interfere with the flexibility of U.S. policymakers to take the steps necessary to protect jobs, support growth, and ensure continued price stability in the United States,” Lew said.

In a letter to senators Tuesday, Lew said other trading partners “have made clear that they will not support the introduction of enforceable currency provisions in the context of trade agreements, and specifically, the TPP.”

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) went as far as to say if the amendment passes, “you could kiss TPP goodbye.”

“We’ve come a long way, and while I know the sincerity behind it, I think it makes it very difficult to carry this bill through,” Hatch said.

Wyden, the Senate Finance Committee ranking member, said the amendment runs the risk of putting the United States on the side of creating rules for global monetary policy and is “a bridge too far.”

The contentious fast-track legislation has splintered congressional Democrats and put them at odds with President Obama and his bid to push through his trade agenda before he leaves office.


MORE AT:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/239812-senate-panel-approves-trade-bill

[BlueCaliDem]

1. This is NOT a "TPP Trade bill". It's the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill. You should correct

the headline because it makes it appear as if a TPP bill has been voted on - which is impossible since NO deal has been finalized - so it hasn't.

The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) simply gives President Obama the authority and credibility to negotiate a Trans-Pacific Partnership deal with other countries. It does NOT give the president a "blank check". It does NOT set any final trade deal in stone. If the TPA bill passes in the full Senate, Congress has ninety days (90 days) to review the agreement and still reserves the right to VOTE IT DOWN if they don't like it. By then we'll know exactly what's in the TPP deal, won't we?

The TPA simply stops Congress from renegotiating a trade deal that the president would have already negotiated in good faith, and it would boost confidence with international partners who have come to the table in good faith that the president has the authority to negotiate trade agreements on behalf of the American people. In the end, Congress still has the final say.

[KoKo]

3. Thanks...sorry TPP is on my brain....and when I titled..typo.. Fixed

[BlueCaliDem]

28. Thanks, KoKo.

The TPP debate is confusing as it is and I just didn't want it to become a tad more confusing for some people.

[sabrina 1]

5. How will know what's in the deal until AFTER it is a done deal? After which, should it pass,

Congress cannot do anything much to change it. They cannot add amendments eg.

Congress does NOT have the final say, IF they hand that authority over to the Executive Branch.

Which is why it failed under Bush. And the authority they would be handing over to this President would be for 6 years.

[tritsofme]

7. You are again incorrect. Under TPA Congress gets the final say.

The deal gets an up or down vote.

If it is a bad deal, Congress can reject it, and it is dead dead dead.

[sabrina 1]

10. You are agreeing with me. Congress doesn't get to make any changes, they have to either toss it

or approve it without having the power to take out anything that is bad for the people. The tactic is to put them in a position of having to vote 'yes' because if they don't, they will be smeared and attacked and all the usual garbage those who stand up for anything in this country today are subjected to with the backing of Corporate Money.

Which is why it failed the last time they tried it.

Congress has the RIGHT to be involved in the writing of legislation for this country.

They are not just some office that rubber stamps laws that Corporations write for them.

They have been denied that right for years now, being forced into giving up that right, and told to just 'stfu and vote'.

Despicable tactics, the Democrats are right to be so opposed to this.

[pampango]

11. The only changes congress would make if they could would be changes for the worse.

If the Boehner-McConnell congress has the power to add, change and delete parts of any agreement Obama signs off on, they will not be changes for the better. Expecting republicans to do otherwise would be praying for a miracle.

I doubt very, very seriously that a republican congress will "take out anything that is bad for the people". I would be much more afraid that they will take out anything that is GOOD for the people and add in a bunch of stuff that is BAD for the people.

Democrats are right to be so opposed to this.

That would be Democratic politicians, not the Democratic base.

[sabrina 1]

12. You speak for the Democratic Base? I don't think so. Looking at the huge opposition to this for

years mostly from Democrats, Unions, Workers Rights Groups etc, enough opposition that it had to be delayed, I don't think Republicans are the ones, they love it, tried to get it done under Bush and thankfully Dems stopped them.

That authority will go to the President for six years. Leaving Congress out of any changes that need to be made. And if we get a majority in the House and Senate, but a Republican in the WH, what will happen then? The Dem Congress will powerless to do anything about it.

We already know what is in some of it and it is awful. Since the President hasn't shown any signs of changing what we already know, what gives you the idea that he isn't happy with it the way it is? He has been praising it for years now.

And since he's personally attacking members of his own party who have legitimate concerns, rather than addressing those concerns, meeting with them and assuring them, with proof, that they can trust him to do what is right for the people.

I'm not aware of any such meetings.

And the TPP is overwhelmingly opposed by the American people. Seems neither our own elected officials or the American people have any power over the Corporations that wrote that legislation.

[pampango]

14. I accept your disagreement but that is what the polls show.

If you want to unquestionably give Boehner and McConnell the ability to make all the pro-corporate changes that they want to any agreement Obama signs because you're afraid of what might happen in the future, that is a fear that I can live with.

republicans do not 'love it' and repeating that over and over does not make it so.

The Dem Congress will powerless to do anything about it.

No. They would not be able to amend it but they could certainly defeat it outright. I consider that 'doing something about it.

[sabrina 1]

17. Most Democrats are likely to vote against it in the current Congress. But since most Republicans

support it, especially the most powerful of them, and we have a few Dems supporting it also, I don't have your confidence that it will be defeated.

Not to mention Dems are in the minority right now.

As for how unpopular the TPP is, here is some pretty detailed coverage of polling on the issue:

U.S. Polling Shows Strong Opposition to Current U.S. Trade Agreement Model by Independents, Republicans and Democrats Alike

That may explain why a January 2014 national poll by Democratic Hart Research Associates and GOP
Chesapeake Beach Consulting found that 62 percent of the U.S. voting public opposes expanding status
quo trade policies by Fast Tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP, currently under
negotiation, would expand the trade model of the unpopular North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA).

Opposition to Fast Tracking the TPP was the majority position across all age groups, income
brackets and geographic regions. Indeed, just 11 percent of respondents said they would be more likely to
vote for a congressional candidate who voted in favor of Fast Track, while 43 percent of respondents
stated they would be less likely to vote for the candidate.5

Similar results were found in a Hart Research Associates poll conducted for the AFL-CIO on the evening of the 2014 congressional elections: 49 percent stated opposition to Fast-Tracking the TPP, compared with 36 percent support. Among those who
felt strongly, opposition to Fast Tracking the TPP outweighed support by two to one.6 Candidates in that election, as with earlier elections, took note of the public’s opposition to more-of-the-same on trade.

There is a lot more information on polling at the link. The bottom line is the people across the political spectrum, don't want it and they do not want Fast Tracking.

Yet, they are being ignored and their Reps are ignored. That doesn't sound too Democratic to me.

[pampango]

19. The Hart-Beach poll you referenced shows Democrats in favor of fast track (52%-35%) though

you are right that overall 62% oppose it - lead by republican opposition (87%-8%) and independents (66%-20%).

Also from the poll, the threat of electoral payback for a vote for fast track was particularly strong (68%) from the republican base (74% for 'conservative republicans'). It was much, much less from Democrats (17%).

The poll showed that 11% were actually more likely to vote for a candidate who voted in favor of fast track. It did not break that down by party affiliation but, in light of the republican opposition to fast track shown above, it would be logical to assume that most of this 11% were Democrats.

The bottom line is the people across the political spectrum, don't want it and they do not want Fast Tracking.

True, but the conservative end of that spectrum and, to a lesser extent, independents are against fast track, while the liberal end is in favor of it.

[sabrina 1]

22. There is a lot of data in the link. But where the people agree across political lines

overwhelmingly is demonstrated here:

General support for trade is not surprising. Past polls, including ones by these same polling groups, have
found majority support for trade but majority opposition for U.S. FTAs modeled after NAFTA. Recent
polls that have asked about the actual content of NAFTA-style deals, Fast Track or other elements of the
current trade policy agenda have confirmed the U.S. public’s broad opposition.16

As mentioned, a January 2014 Hart/Chesapeake poll found 62 percent opposition to Fast Tracking the
TPP. Among those with strong opinions, Fast Track opponents outnumbered proponents by more than
three to one (43 percent strongly opposing versus 12 percent strongly favoring).

The poll also asked respondents to assess the relative strength of common arguments for and against Fast Track.

While 50 percent or more of the respondents found eight anti-Fast Track arguments convincing, none of the proFast
Track arguments were ranked as convincing by a majority of respondents.

For example, the poll gave respondents these competing arguments: “Fast-track authority allows the president to negotiate
agreements while preserving Congress's crucial role in reviewing and ratifying agreements, just as the Constitution calls for,” and “Congress should meet its responsibility, review the agreement carefully, and make sure it is in the best interests of American workers and consumers.”

Sixty-eight percent of respondents identified with the latter, anti-Fast Track argument while 27 percent identified with the proFast
Track argument.17

Going back to past elections since around 2010 an overwhelming number of Americans oppose 'Nafta Style' trade agreements, and support has dropped very significantly for NAFTA since 2001, now that people have seen the results.

In fact large numbers of Americans would support the US getting out of NAFTA.



And when Dems run on strong Anti-Nafta style Trade agreements they get huge support for that position.

And on offshoring of jobs, respondents agree again by overwhelming margins and that Corporations who do this should not receive subsidies.

So where does all this leave Democrats now, if Obama pushes this through and more jobs are lost, if there is no protection against offshoring of American jobs? No increase in US exports?

Producing goods here, increasing America's export of goods, is also hugely popular among all respondents.

So what is in this deal that responds to these concerns?

We don't know, and that is the problem

[pampango]

23. We agree that the poll shows that 62% oppose fast track. My point has been that Democrats are

the one group that supports it.

The same applies to the TPP. The support for it is stronger on the left than on the right but "people agree across political lines" support it.

You can keep posting the people across the spectrum oppose fast track. I don't dispute that. Do you acknowledge that Democrats are the only group that support both TPP and fast track? The poll you are referencing shows that.

[tritsofme]

15. Allowing amendments would only serve to kill the deal.

Obama cannot be a credible negotiator without TPA. If Congress can overturn the fine points of a multi-party back and forth negotiation line by line, then Obama's word is meaningless, and his partners could not trust him or his commitments.

It is not practical to have 536 people at the negotiating table. TPA gives Congress a voice by setting objectives for the USTR, direct oversight, and detailed status on the negotiations.

The president deserves an up or down vote on the deal he negotiates. If it is a bad one, Congress should kill it.

[sabrina 1]

18. His partners should know that we have a system of Government in this country where

there are checks and balances on each branch, for very good reasons.

Maybe if they knew that, since we now have Corporations writing our laws (uneffingbelievable though it is) they would be more careful to make sure to write laws that STRONGLY favor the American people, that do not attempt to interfere with our other laws, environment, net neutrality etc. Or, as members of Congress have said 'if the American people knew what is in this, they would oppose it'.

That is why we have our OWN government, to look out for our interests. The very fact that they don't want to deal with the American People through their Reps, want to dispense with a critical part of our democratic process, and deal with just one individual in the Executive Branch, which logic tells us will be a whole lot easier for them, should be a huge warning as to how BAD this is going to be for the people of this country.

No way should we be willing to alter our democratic system to please other nations and Global Corps

And that was why this Fast Tracking of a Trade Bill was defeated under Bush. Not because it was him specifically, but because it is not the way our Government was intended to work. That government first and foremost is meant to work for the benefit of its PEOPLE, not for the benefit of Global Corporations.

Trade deals are not just for a select few who will benefit from them. The American people seem to play no role in any of this, when in fact our Reps are supposed to REPRESENTING US, that is their job, which they seem to forget when they get inside the bubble in DC.

A huge majority of the American people oppose the TPP and the Fast Tracking of Trade Bills. Does that matter to those inside the secret international group that is pushing this agreement?

It appears the people are not even a factor in this loudly though they have been trying to shout.

[tritsofme]

20. It is fine to oppose TPA on the merits, but it is disingenuous to suggest

that it is unconstitutional or challenges our system of government.

TPA is merely a statutory agreement between the president and Congress for the rules under which Congress considers trade deals. It is not binding on Congress, and either house could essentially renege unilaterally on the deal at any time.

I think the president deserves an up or down vote, you may disagree. But TPA is a policy disagreement, not a constitutional crisis.

[Fumesucker]

24. "Up or down vote"

There is a phrase that brings back memories.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Up+or+Down+Vote

Up or Down Vote
When a slim marjority demands a vote because their opponent, just barely the minority, is stalling the vote. Used in the most extreme of polarizing issues, nearly exclusively.

The Democrats suck just as bad as the Republicans. Now that they have a slim majority they're pulling the same Up or Down Vote trick the Republicans tried when they were in charge.

[tritsofme]

25. Yes...supporting majority rule makes one a Republican...or some nonsense.

[Fumesucker]

30. I just think it's funny when I see people on DU saying the same things we hated a few years ago

Up or down vote got mocked a lot on DU, at this point it's a phrase I will more than likely connect with Republicans for the rest of my life.

[tritsofme]

33. It's all relative!

In my head it is a term associated with the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

[Joe Turner]

29. Unfortunately if it is a bad deal, which it is, Congress will still pass it

The power elite, as always, will put tremendous pressure on our elected officials to pass the bill and most will acquiesce. The trouble with Fast Track is the it removes the ability of Congress to review and make changes in the legislation. Changes that can make a world of difference in how the trade agreement impacts people, jobs, the environment.

[tritsofme]

32. When Congress "changes" a multiparty negotiated agreement it is the same as killing it

TPA among other things sets priorities for the USTR, and actually gets Congress closer to the table than they otherwise would be.

If these congressmen feel such drastic changes are needed to a final agreement, it is their duty to vote no. It is a bit fanciful to posit that the same group of congressmen that would make large changes to an agreement outside of TPA would dutifully pass that same agreement in an up or down vote.

[Joe Turner]

34. That happens most of the time with trade agreements

Congressmen are subjected to great pressure to pass something they know little about. Nafta and Cafta were certainly that way. Trade agreements are simply too important to be written by special interests then rammed through Congress with little input from our elected officials. These are the folks that supposed to represent us. If an agreement is too complicated for Congressional review then it should not be presented to Congress or the Presidency for passage.

[tritsofme]

36. The problem isn't that the agreement is too complicated for congressional review.

It's that Obama will submit a completed agreement, and Congress cannot reopen that agreement without killing the entire deal.

The United States cannot unilaterally alter a deal between many nations without scuttling the entire thing.

The only practical way to consider such a deal is as an up or down vote.

[Joe Turner]

37. Trade Treaties with other nations should never be subject to an up or down vote.

There is just too much room for mischief as past trade agreements have proved in spades. You just can't have a bunch of corporate lobbyists write such an all encompassing treaty and expect to run it by Congress with little review. Personally I don't like any "free" trade deal our trade negotiators draft because they have invariably prove to benefit only corporations and foreign nations.

[jwirr]

9. Why is there a 6 year clause in this? What if Rs take over any time during that period?

[sabrina 1]

13. Because the Corporations who write our Trade Bills now do not want Congress holding anything up.

So if they can get Congress to hand over its power to the Executive Branch, it doesn't matter to them who is in the WH. Should it be a Dem, is that Dem going to try to change anything another Dem President has done? And if it's a Republican, well they are all for giving the Executive Branch all that power so Corps win either way.

And if we get a majority in Congress and the Senate, they have lost the power to do anything.

There seems to be a pattern with Fast Tracking.

Bush tried this in 2007, at the same point in his presidency as Obama is now. Dems stopped him, with the help of a few Republicans. But it seems they don't try it when they are facing elections. The tactic seems to be to get them to do it when it won't affect them anymore.

[tritsofme]

16. It is probably the price of Republican support in Congress.

The TPA agreement could be written much more on our terms if it had stronger Democratic support. It would have been even more favorable if it passed when Democrats controlled one or both houses of Congress.

[Cali_Democrat]

35. Good summary!

Thanks.

[MineralMan]

2. Actually it was the TPA, not the TPP.

The TPP is not on the Senate's agenda, because it has not yet been finalized. You can edit your post to correct the error. Accuracy is important.

[djean111]

4. TPA = FAST TRACK! TPA greases the tracks for the TPP.

With Fast Track, there is a limited amount of time to review the TPP - AND NOTHING CAN BE ADDED, CHANGED, OR DELETED.

There can just be an UP or DOWN vote.
Fast Track is what Warren and Sanders and others have been arguing against.

My senator, Bill Nelson, will never get another vote from me.

Next, the Senate votes on whether to approve Fast Track, or TPA (Trade Promotion Authority).

Oh, and people in other countries are also protesting the TPP, it is not just a few malcontents who don't like Obama, or whatever the fuck the meme of the day is today.

[sabrina 1]

6. Thank you. People don't seem to be getting that. That if it is Fast Tracked, Congress has given up

authority to change anything, which they still have not seen and by the time they do, if they are insane enough to do this, it will be too late.

Nelson doesn't deserve your vote. This issue will provide voters with a list of those who need to be replaced. At least that's one benefit I suppose.

[KMOD]

21. There may be a potential out

Wyden fought for, and won, a number of provisions aimed at ensuring greater public transparency in the trade negotiations, as well as a key provision that would allow the Senate to turn off the fast-track authority if the Obama administration fails to live up to certain requirements during the negotiations.

"One issue that has come up again and again is the excessive secrecy that seems to have accompanied so much of this debate," Wyden said Thursday. "American trade policy needs to be debated openly."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/16/senators-bipartisan-bill-would-give-obama-key-powers-on-trade/

[mmonk]

27. Thanks for saying it.

Somebody had to.

[Octafish]

8. Speeding Democracy in the ''Right'' direction! Hoozah!

If Mitt likes it, it's gotta be "good."

[liberal_at_heart]

26. Cantwell voted yes for fast track I see. I will remember that at election time.

Glad to see Patty Murray didn't vote for it.

[joeybee12]

31. I lived in Seattle when Cantwell was elected...and was very happy at the time...

Remember how long it took until she was declared the winner? She's pretty much been a disappointment since then...time for her to go.