House GOP Leaders Trying To Sneak Fast Track Trade Vote
As soon as Thursday, June 18, 2015, the House of Representatives could vote on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) as a stand alone bill. Under consideration is a new plan that would have the House of Representatives vote on TPA which would grant President Barack Obama “fast-track” authority to negotiate trade deals-separately from the Trade Adjustment Assistance provision rejected last week.
In the face of diverse opposition, the decision to split up the bills comes as House Republican leaders and the White House attempt to figure out a way to pass “fast-track”. The Associated Press reported:
Now Obama and his allies are considering something they had desperately hoped to avoid: revisiting trade legislation in the Senate, possibly after the House votes on a simplified fast track bill. It would give Senate opponents another chance to strangle the legislation with costly delays and other tactics.
Despite a personal plea from the President on Friday, June 12, 2015, Democrats banded together to defeat President Obama's trade agenda. The House of Representatives on a 302-126 vote (To see how your representative voted: 361 ) failed to pass the Trade Act of 2015 (H.R. 1314; Text of legislation ), a worker aid bill that was tied to the President's main agenda that would grant Obama “fast-track” authority to negotiate trade deals.
The Senate used the Ensuring Tax Exempt Organizations the Right to Appeal Act (H.R. 1314; Text of Legislation) as the vehicle in the Senate to pass on Friday, May 22, 2015, on a 62-37 vote (To view how your senators voted visit: 193 ) trade promotion authority or fast-track authority. The legislation empowers President Barack Obama and future Presidents to negotiate trade deals that Congress cannot change. And instead of having to clear the 60-vote hurdle required of controversial legislation, those deals can win Senate approval with simple-majority votes. For up to six years the legislation grants expedited review of trade agreements.
Trade Statistics Misrepresented
The same lies that were used to sell previous bad deals are being used by supporters of Fast Track. For example, U.S. Representative of Wisconsin Paul Ryan (R) and U.S. Senator of Texas Ted Cruz (R) have claimed that Fast Track by reducing America's huge deficits would produce jobs. They wrote in an April 22, 2015 commentary:
"The American worker can compete with anybody, if given a fair chance. If you add up all 20 countries that the U.S. has a trade agreement with, American manufacturers run a $50 billion trade surplus with them. The problem is that not all countries have a trade agreement with the U.S.: American manufacturers run a $500 billion trade deficit with those nations."
However, deeply deceptive is their $50 billion surplus number. For example, it involves selecting some and excluding other goods exported and imported. The U.S. ran a deficit of 61.7 billion dollars in 2014 with its Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partners indicates a complete measure of the balance of trade for all goods
Furthermore, after the free trade agreements were negotiated, the U.S. trade deficits with the FTA partners got worse. The average deficit with each FTA partner was less than $0.8 billion in the year prior to implementation of each FTA. And the average deficit with each FTA partner was over $3 billion by 2014.
The “free trade” treaty that former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama negotiated with currency-manipulating South Korea is one example. According to the calculations of University of Maryland economist Peter Morici, former director of the Office of Economics at the U.S. International Trade Commission, the FTA grew the overall U.S. trade deficit (goods plus services) with South Korea from $5.4 billion in 2011 to $13.3 billion in 2014.
At the expense of the U.S., the FTA with South Korea lets only one country grow its economy. However, involved in the treaty that President Obama is currently negotiating are 11 countries (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam), three of which (Japan, Malaysia, and Vietnam) are active currency-manipulators committed to stopping U.S. efforts to end currency manipulation. And expected to join later are additional currency-manipulating nations.
The legislation implicitly endorses currency manipulation which is the chief way that nations subsidize their exports and place on their imports hidden tariffs. To a bill that encourages currency manipulation the words “free trade” should not be applied. Trade surplus nations gain more factories, more research and development, and more economic growth by manipulating their currencies to unbalance trade. Conversely, the opposite effects such as reduced factories, reduced research and development and reduced economic growth are experienced by the trade deficit nations.
The further decline of Congressional authority under President Obama is exacerbated by “Fast Track.” For example, concerning massive and complex treaties negotiated in secret, it empowers the President to present Congress with a take-it-or leave-it demand. Positive issues for the U.S. such as patent and copyright protection for American intellectual property and a reduction in tariffs on American agricultural products might be contained in the final trade agreements. However, included in the final trade agreements might be negative issues for the U.S. For example, creating a private court system that gives foreigners the right to sue the U.S. government if any law or regulation violates the treaty. And in the current draft of the treaty there is no doubt that this is included. Also, from Mexico and other treaty nations, is a mandate to end congressional limits on legal immigration.
To see what is in it, members of Congress would be well-advised to avoid voting for “Fast Track.” To prevent the President from ignoring the wishes of the American people Fast Track should be voted down. President Obama should be forced to negotiate the treaty and then bring it to Congress−which is a much better strategy. This would strengthen the administration's ability to extract favorable concessions if Congress retains its power to amend the final agreement. For example, the administration can say, “that they would like to negotiate what a nation wants but that provision would likely be amended out of the treaty by Congress.” Any deal negotiated is much more likely to be good for the American people if Congress retains its full constitutional authority.
A Private Court System
Should a future President decide to balance its trade with currency-manipulating nations through tariffs, the establishment of a private court system that would render billions of dollars of judgment against the U.S. government is the worst aspect of Fast Track. In comparison, a provision that allows trade deficit nations to impose trade-balancing tariffs is included in World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. In 1971, President Nixon took advantage of this provision when he imposed a 10 percent across-the-board tariff, which quickly forced changes that brought 1973 U.S. trade into balance. Currently, this provision could be used by the U.S. As a result, the U.S. would have more factories, more research and development, and more economic growth. However, everything would be changed by the new private court system. For example, America's trade deficit would never be solved by future U.S. Presidents.
Limits Congressional Power
Americans that want an economy that works for those that play by the rules and work hard and believe in the U.S. Constitution should be worried about Fast Track. To limit the power of Congress is why President Barack Obama wants Fast Track. Congress alone has the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations” according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution yet wanting to cede that power to the President are Congressional Republicans. Broad negotiating powers for treaties are given to the President. Fast Track eliminates the 2/3 requirement for Senate ratification, eliminates amendments, limits debate and for passage of any trade agreement under allotted procedure requires a mere simple majority in both houses of Congress.
Future Congress's hands are tied by Fast Track since it cedes the power of trade agreements beyond current members' two-year terms. Since the sitting President would have to sign a new law repealing their own extra-Constitutional power to regulate trade without Congress's consent, a popular revolt against Fast Track at the ballot box would be meaningless.
American sovereignty is surrendered to foreign trade bodies such as the WTO's court system, which has full jurisdiction for all trade disputes by the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and other trade agreements. So Americans would not know where the food they are eating is coming from, TPP like previous trade agreements would bar Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) laws. And foreign courts would be allowed to overrule U.S. federal and state courts by TPP. For labor, environmental, tax, as well as COOL laws, this would be true.
For President Obama's nearly completed Trans-Pacific Partnership he should be denied Trade Promotion Authority or fast-track authority that enables a simple majority-vote for passage.
For authority to negotiate a free trade agreement with Pacific nations, Congress should impose tough conditions on President Obama's request. In changing immigration policies and releasing prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to name a few President Obama has overstepped his powers and cannot be trusted.
Obama and his supporters say that Trans-Pacific Partnership (Obamatrade) will keep Communist China from taking over the world. However, Obama told a public radio program that Communist China can join the pact and has in fact asked his administration to do so. The President cannot not be trusted because he is a habitual liar. Such is the case with Obamacare in 2010 when he told the American people “If you like your insurance, you can keep it.” Sadly, Americans learned the hard way that this was a lie after millions so far have had their policies cancelled. The proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership can be rewritten and updated at any time in the future and is thus “a living agreement." One would be a fool to believe that Congress will be involved in updating the agreement. A new global authority is created by the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission that empowers it to enforce the deal and admit new members such as Communist China on its own. Simply on the basis of consensus agreement of existing members the Trans-Pacific Partnership like the European Union has the ability to admit other nations. And compared to other trade deals approved by Congress this is unlike any previous deal.
Tariffs and other administrative barriers to commerce such as restrictions on the operation of U.S. information technology for companies abroad and inadequate protection of U.S. patents and copyrights should be eliminated and reduced by trade agreements. U.S. exports should be increased by those agreements and a wider range of less expensive imported goods should be available to consumers.
By moving workers from lower paying jobs, such as assembling computers, to higher paying positions designing new devices and software free trade should increase U.S. wages and incomes. However, this is not always the case. For example, promising big job gains, President Obama implemented a free trade pact in March 2012 with South Korea. At a cost of at least 100,000 U.S. jobs bilateral imports increased by $15.5 billion and exports increased only $3 billion.
Economists expect the value of the dollar to fall against foreign currencies when imports grow more than exports. To rebalance trade and create good-paying jobs that would raise prices for foreign goods in U.S. stores and lower prices for U.S. products sold abroad. Principal U.S. competitors—Communist China, Japan, Germany, and South Korea—pursue monetary and exchange rate policies explicitly intended to keep their currencies inexpensive against the dollar and advantage their domestic industries frustrating these market adjustments.
Industries —such as autos, aircrafts and information technology are targeted by these governments and they compel U.S. firms to sell in their markets to establish factories and R&D in their nations. More U.S. jobs are lost by this as those facilities often export back into the U.S. Annually overall 4 million jobs are directly lost by U.S. imports that exceed exports by more than $500 billion.
Furthermore, under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, currency manipulation is illegal. However, pleas from industry to bring complaints in the WTO have been ignored by both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Weakened in recent years are trade enforcement laws that permit the Commerce Department and U.S. International Trade Commission to impose tariffs on subsidized imports that result in the loss of jobs. However, by shipping products through intermediate nations and altering customs, classifications many Asian exporters evade these laws.
By altering domestic regulations for product standards, the environment and the like modern trade agreements reach deeply into the treatment of foreign goods and services. If Congress can modify U.S. commitments during the ratification process, foreign leaders would not negotiate on those issues.
What should concern every American is that Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) or fast track would turn over to a new international body similar to the economic union of the nascent European Union important Congressional powers preventing lawmakers from removing any objectionable provisions. The American economy is experiencing an economic malaise and Americans are desperate for high paying jobs. Yet for workers that lose their jobs, ostensibly as a result of free trade, the measure has a several billion dollar social welfare giveaway program. Why would this be part of a trade deal that is alleged to enhance the U.S. economy and create jobs for Americans? And at a time in American history when more people do not work than do, the deal could be used to accelerate the immigration of foreign workers. Such a trade deal is not good for the American economy as it will cause more Americans to lose their jobs and depress wages further and will continue Obama's destruction of the middle class.
So that they could stop President Obama's radical agenda, American voters gave Republican leaders majorities first the House and then the Senate in the 2010 and 2014 elections. However, the Republican leadership has decided to give him more power instead of stopping him. And despite deep opposition by their base, Republican leaders are determined to advance Obama's fast-track agenda. Congress must not cede any additional authority to President Barack Obama who has spent the past six years shredding the constitutional separation of powers. Fast Track would be another monumental failure of congressional Republicans to stop the President's fundamental transformation of America.
Obamatrade Vote Tomorrow?
Obama trade push runs aground as House Democrats derail key bill
Congress should impose tough conditions for Obama's Pacific trade pact
Even more surprises hidden in Obamatrade
'Simple solution' to Obamatrade's problems
Franken-trade: Deal's ‘living agreement' plan that could rope in China draws fire
Fast-Tracking America's Economic Destruction
Sen. Jeff Sessions: Top Five Concerns With Trade Promotion Authority
Trade Authority For Obama Will Cut Congress Out Of Picture
Selling Out the Constitution and Main Street on Trade
What Can You Do?
Urge your representative to NOT SUPPORT Trade Promotion Authority or fast-track trade legislation. Politely inform your representative that “Obamatrade” will be an issue in 2016 and that your vote for them will be dependent on how they vote on this legislation.
Capitol Hill Switchboard Number: 202-224-3121 (This number will direct you to the Capitol Hill operator. Ask for your representative's office.)
To find out who your representative is visit ... Find Your Representative
To electronically mail your U.S. House of Representative, go to Directory of Representatives
Back to the American Voice Institute of Public Policy Home Page