[CTC] Two on the TPP & presidential politics

[Arthur Stamoulis]

Two articles below...

Trade pact backers hit 2 big hurdles: Donald and Hillary
Presidential politics complicate Barack Obama's push to ratify one of the biggest trade deals in history.
By Seung Min Kim <http://www.politico.com/staff/seung-min-kim>
11/09/15 05:16 AM EST

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/senate-trade-trans-pacific-partnership-obama-215610#ixzz3r1okZiuN <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/senate-trade-trans-pacific-partnership-obama-215610#ixzz3r1okZiuN>

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are railing against the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the Democratic primary. On the right, GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump is ripping the trade deal as a “disaster” negotiated by “incompetent people.”

President Barack Obama’s herculean task of shepherding the landmark Trans-Pacific Partnership through Capitol Hill is about to run into one major hurdle: 2016 presidential politics.

The Obama administration already won one hard-fought battle when trade promotion authority passed in June over opposition from most Democrats. But the booming anti-trade rhetoric animating the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries could complicate the path for Congress to formally approve the trade agreement between the United States and 11 Asia-Pacific nations, officially made public last week.

Obama has little room for error. Pro-trade backers won the June fight by the narrowest of margins in both the House and Senate. The trade pact is the biggest item on Obama’s economic agenda during his last two years in office.

“We only got 13 Democrats in the Senate on TPA,” Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said. “There is a concern that with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side so fervently anti-trade, that I’m not sure whether those Democrat votes will be there.”

When asked whether Clinton’s opposition made it more difficult for pro-trade Democrats to back the sweeping Pacific Rim trade agreement, one Senate Democrat who voted against TPA said bluntly: “Yes.”

On the other end, conservative opponents of Obama’s trade agenda are seizing on Trump’s rise in the Republican presidential primary to blunt momentum for the TPP. The issue has driven a rift through the GOP field: Trump and Ted Cruz are skeptics, while Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have been warm to it.

“I think Trump’s strength in the Republican primary is in significant part due to his challenging of trade and the fact that he says we haven’t defended American interests effectively,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), whose conservative views on trade and immigration align with those of the billionaire mogul.

Congress is far away from a vote on approving or rejecting the sweeping Pacific Rim trade deal among the dozen countries that represent roughly 40 percent of the world’s gross domestic product.

After notifying Congress last Thursday that he intends to sign the TPP, Obama has to wait at least 90 days to actually do so. And then Obama would have to officially submit the deal to Capitol Hill, which would have 90 legislative days to vote on the agreement. The White House and congressional leaders are expected to work in tandem to figure out when Obama would submit the deal to Congress.

There is already speculation that a vote on TPP won’t happen until after the November 2016 elections, which opponents of the trade deal point to as a sign that the issue is getting too hot to tackle before lawmakers up for reelection go before voters.
“I think that evidence is a belief in Congress that the American people don’t want it and that they would prefer to bring it up after an election in a lame duck, perhaps when they might have a better chance of passing it,” Sessions said.

Whenever the TPP fight comes to Congress, it’s sure to echo the ugly and arduous fight that marked the battle to grant Obama trade promotion authority, which is fast-track power that allows the president to submit the trade deal for straight up-or-down votes without any amendments.

In June, just 28 Democrats in the House and 13 Democrats in the Senate backed TPA, which passed the House with 218 votes and the Senate with 60. Under the fast-track law, approval of TPP needs just a simple majority as long as lawmakers believe the trade deal meets the requirements laid out under trade promotion authority.

Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, are expected to provide most of the votes for Obama’s trade deal, although administration officials are hoping to attract more Democratic support because of labor and environmental standards in the pact that they’re calling robust.

Still, anti-TPP Democrats have a major weapon in their arsenal in Clinton. The likely Democratic standard-bearer came out in opposition to the TPP in October, after calling it the “gold standard” of trade agreements as Obama’s secretary of state in 2012.
“Secretary Clinton’s leadership on this issue is a substantial boost to those of us who oppose the TPP,” said Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.). “Secretary Clinton’s important statement highlighted an issue that many of us who have serious concerns about the TPP have been focused on — the issue of currency manipulation.”

There’s no indication yet from the small cadre of pro-trade Democrats that their support for Obama’s trade agenda is wavering in light of Clinton’s opposition. Those Democrats, who came under fire from the left for their votes in June, could invite even more scrutiny if they decided to flip their trade stance.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who voted for trade promotion authority, dismissed any influence that the trade opposition from Clinton and Sanders — who bemoaned last week that the TPP is “worse than I thought” — will have on him or other pro-trade Democrats.

“I think at one point she was for it when it was being negotiated,” Carper said of Clinton. “If it actually reads and appears as we’ve been told by the trade ambassador and his staff, I think pro-trade Dems will stick … regardless of Secretary Clinton’s position.”

In addition to Carper, Senate Democrats who backed TPA in June are Michael Bennet of Colorado, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray of Washington, Chris Coons of Delaware, Dianne Feinstein of California, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner of Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Bill Nelson of Florida, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Ron Wyden of Oregon. Bennet could face a competitive reelection bid next year.

In the Senate, 2016 politics aren’t the only obstacle that TPP backers will have to navigate.

Cornyn said the administration’s decision not to lift the ban on crude oil exports in conjunction with the trade agreement “certainly dims my enthusiasm.” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said he’s “absolutely against” TPP as written because of intellectual property provisions for biologics — a new class of drugs made from living cells — and pharmaceuticals, as well as the omission of tobacco from the TPP’s investor protections. Fellow North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr has similar concerns.

All three Senate Republicans backed trade promotion authority in June.

“I think it has serious problems with being passed next year,” Tillis said.

Even Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), one of the staunchest proponents of trade authority, has major concerns with the negotiated agreement as it’s been described. He told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last Friday that the current draft of TPP “falls short” and that U.S. trade officials may have to renegotiate the deal.

Pro-trade lawmakers are urging colleagues to reserve judgment until they’ve had a chance to fully review the text of the agreement. And they’re touting the transparency of the TPP, arguing that’s what really matters, not presidential politics.

“Both sides over the years got up and said, ‘You know what’s really bad about trade is, it’s all these sleazy deals being done in the dead of backrooms and nobody knows what’s going on,’” said Wyden, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee. “Now, before … any senator or congressperson casts a vote in the Senate and in the House, there will be months of sunshine for people to really get into the issue. That’s what’s new here.”

====

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/08/marco-rubio-tries-rewrite-history-obamatrade/

MARCO RUBIO DISTANCES HIMSELF FROM TPP AS ‘PILLAR’ OF HIS PRESIDENCY
by JULIA HAHN <http://www.breitbart.com/author/julia-hahn/>8 Nov 2015Washington D.C.872 <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/08/marco-rubio-tries-rewrite-history-obamatrade/#disqus_thread>
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)80%
—who declared the Trans-Pacific Partnership to be one of three essential “pillars” of a Rubio Presidency—is now taking issue with a Wall Street Journal news report <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/06/ben-carson-backs-white-houses-tpp-trade-deal/> that lists Rubio as supporting the unpopular Obamatrade pact he voted to fast-track.

The Wall Street Journal article observed <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/06/ben-carson-backs-white-houses-tpp-trade-deal/> that: “Still backing the trade legislation are the party’s establishment wing candidates: Sen. Marco Rubio and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and Govs. John Kasich of Ohio and Chris Christie of New Jersey.”

Indeed, it was in the very pages of the Wall Street Journal that on April 29th Rubio wrote <http://www.wsj.com/articles/asia-needs-a-strong-u-s-japan-alliance-1430329908>: “We must rebuild our own military capabilities, conclude and pass TPP, and renew our support for freedom and the rule of law in Asia.”

Then, on May 13th, Rubio declared: “It is more important than ever that Congress give the president [Barack Obama] trade promotion authority so that he can finalize the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Moreover, Rubio cast a vote for the final passage of the Trade Promotion Authority—also known as fast-track—all but guaranteeing formation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as no deal placed on a fast-track has ever been blocked. That is because fast-track eliminates all amendments, eliminates the filibuster and treaty vote, and authorizes the President to finalize and sign the agreement. As Obamatrade opponent 

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)82%
 wrote: “A vote for fast-track is a vote to authorize the President to ink the secret deal contained in these pages—to affix his name on the Union and to therefore enter the United States into it.”

But after the Wall Street Journal listed Rubio as supporting the pact, a new paragraph suddenly appeared at the end of the piece stating that “Mr. Rubio’s spokesman said that although he backed the bill granting Mr. Obama fast-track trade authority this summer, he has not decided whether to support TPP legislation.”

Contrary to the spokesman’s statement, however, Rubio has explicitly articulated his support for TPP. In his April op-ed, Rubio affixed his name to an editorial declaring that we “must… pass TPP.”

Rubio wrote <http://www.wsj.com/articles/asia-needs-a-strong-u-s-japan-alliance-1430329908>:

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), discussed between President Obama and Prime Minister Abe this week, will further our strategic goals in Asia and increase prosperity at home. It will advance economic liberty and unleash free-market forces in the world’s most dynamic region… We must rebuild our own military capabilities, conclude and pass TPP, and renew our support for freedom and the rule of law in Asia. Too often over the past six years, U.S. leaders have spoken of their attention to Asia but failed to back up the rhetoric with action.”

Similarly, in an address <http://www.cfr.org/united-states/marco-rubios-foreign-policy-vision/p36511> to the Council on Foreign Relations in May of this year, Rubio described TPP as the “second pillar” of his three-pillar foreign policy strategy.

“My second pillar,” Rubio declared, “is the protection of the American economy in a globalized world…  It is more important than ever that Congress give the president [Barack Obama] trade promotion authority so that he can finalize the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.”

Following these pronouncements, Rubio voted to fast-track TPP. Sen. Rubio cast the 60th and deciding vote <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/23/marco-rubio-casts-deciding-vote-for-obamatrade-without-even-reading-it/> for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), a controversial fast-track mechanism for ramming trade treaties through Congress with minimum scrutiny, to clear the Senate’s filibuster.

In a message warning Senators to oppose the fast-track mechanism, Jeff Sessions specifically cited the fact that it would speed the creation of a TPP Commission. He explained <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/jeff-sessions-on-obamatrades-new-pacific-union-like-the-eu-something-america-has-never-seen-before/>: “This nation has never seen an agreement that compares to the TPP, which forms a new Pacific Union. This is far more than a trade agreement, but creates a self-governing and self-perpetuating Commission with extraordinary implications for American workers and American sovereignty.”

Sessions is one of the few Senators to visit the basement room <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/07/only-two-republicans-admit-they-actually-read-secret-obama-trade-deal-both-unsupportive/> in the Capitol where lawmakers had to go read the provisions in question. After the text was made public, Sessions pointed to the now-public chapter 27 “Administrative And Institutional Provisions” and article 27.1 “The Establishment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission,” which contains the very language Sessions warned about. In a statement on November 5th, Sessions quoted at length from this chapter and observed that <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/05/jeff-sessions-kill-the-anti-democratic-trans-pacific-partnership-in-the-crib-repeal-fast-track-authority-now/>:

This new structure is known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission – a Pacific Union – which meets, appoints unelected bureaucrats, adopts rules, and changes the agreement after adoption… This global governance authority is open-ended… It covers everything from the movement of foreign nationals… to climate regulation… At bottom, this is not a mere trade agreement. It bears the hallmarks of a nascent European Union.

Sessions also said that the enormous length of the TPP— 5,554 pages— was “by definition, anti-democratic”:

No individual American has the resources to ensure his or her economic and political interests are safeguarded within this vast global regulatory structure. The predictable and surely desired result of the TPP is to put greater distance between the governed and those who govern. It puts those who make the rules out of reach of those who live under them, empowering unelected regulators who cannot be recalled or voted out of office.  In turn, it diminishes the power of the people’s bulwark: their constitutionally-formed Congress.

In his statement, Sessions also observed, “because this deal lacks currency protections, it will further the bleeding of U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas, allowing our mercantilist trading partners to take advantage of our continued refusal to protect our own workers.” This has prompted the opposition of Ford Motors as well.

Thus, if Senator Rubio no longer believed that we “must… pass” TPP, or if he regretted casting the 60th vote to fast-track it, it would be easy for him—like Sessions—to put out a statement explaining his opposition to TPP. Rubio could easily say that he did not want to form a new international regulatory structure, or that he believed currency manipulation would hurt U.S. workers, or that he thought—like Sessions—that an agreement so long would undermine democracy. But Rubio has issued no such statement at all to retract any of his prior support.

Breitbart News reached out to Rubio’s office and asked if the Senator continues to stand by his April 29th and May 13th comments in which he expressed his support for TPP. Breitbart News asked if, in light of Sen. Sessions findings on TPP’s impact on U.S. sovereignty, Sen. Rubio was “prepared to reverse his longstanding support of TPP and oppose the deal.” In response, Rubio’s spokesman directed Breitbart News to an interview <http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/05/cnbc-transcript-cnbc-chief-washington-correspondent-john-harwood-speaks-with-florida-senator-marco-rubio-today-on-cnbcs-fast-money-halftime-report.html>with CNBC’s John Hardwood, in which Rubio expressed <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/07/marco-rubio-praises-obamatrade/> his “very positive” feelings about Obamatrade in the days after Obama reached the agreement.

Rubio’s tactic here—once supporting a top donor class priority while working to mitigate conservative criticism long enough to achieve it—is not new.

When Rubio dropped the Gang of Eight immigration bill, he was just as effusive as he was in the early days about TPP. He declared it to be the “toughest border security and enforcement measures in U.S. history.” Yet when conservatives became enraged at the contents of the bill, Rubio did a conservative media tour to head off his critics by pledging to fix any issues with the legislation.

As National Review wrote <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351212/rubios-folly-cont-editors> at the time:

“It is painful to watch Marco Rubio’s maneuverings on immigration. He is refusing to say whether he will vote “yes” on his own Gang of Eight bill after spending months drafting, defending, and helping shepherd it to the floor. He has supposedly discovered that the enforcement provisions are inadequate, although he has done countless interviews touting that the bill contains the “toughest immigration-enforcement measures in the history of United States” (which is what his website still says). At the same time, Rubio declares the bill 95–96 percent perfect.”

Rubio’s delay tactics worked—the bill passed with 68 votes—an achievement which had eluded Ted Kennedy and 

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)41%
 in 2007.

ICE Union President Chris Crane has explained <http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/24/ice-union-president-rubio-directly-misled-law-enforcement/>: “Senator Rubio left unchanged legislation that he himself admitted to us in private was detrimentally flawed and must be changed… Legislation written behind closed doors by handpicked special interest groups which put their political agendas and financial gains before sound and effective law and the welfare and safety of the American public.” On the day of the final vote, Rubio gave perhaps his most passionate speech yet in favor of the Obama-backed measure to hand out 33 million green cards.

A recent Politico report <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/trade-trans-pacific-partnership-214807> revealed that GOP leadership may delay the up-or-down vote on TPP until after the 2016 election during the lame duck session. Talk radio host Laura Ingraham has described <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/23/jeff-sessions-warns-obamatrade-vote-lame-duck-congress/> this as “criminal” and is “clearly out of [the GOP establishment’s] desire to help Rubio and hurt Donald Trump.”

While Rubio has supported the unpopular trade pact, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump—by contrast—has declared <http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/05/exclusive-donald-trump-declares-war-on-obamatrade-time-to-send-a-real-businessman-to-white-house-to-end-this/> war on Obamatrade, and has made his opposition to globalist trade pacts a signature issue of his presidential campaign. Sessions has demanded that the vote on TPP not be delayed and instead “be held when voters can hold their lawmakers accountable—not during an unaccountable lame duck session.”

If Rubio becomes President, he will inherit Obamatrade’s fast-track powers and similarly be able to pass any globalist trade pact without a filibuster, amendment, or treaty vote.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.citizenstrade.org/pipermail/ctcfield-citizenstrade.org/attachments/20151109/f63806da/attachment.htm>