Lawmakers reach deal on 'fast track' trade authority

[Peace Piper]

Lawmakers reach deal on 'fast track' trade authority

Susan Davis, USA TODAY 5:08 p.m. EDT April 16, 2015

WASHINGTON — Top lawmakers reached a deal Thursday on legislation to grant President Obama "fast track" trade authority to advance one of the largest trade pacts in history, a step that could set off one of the sharpest legislative battles of the year and put Democratic unity to the test.

The bill is a top priority for the administration and congressional Republicans, but the fast track bill and the underlying Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal between the U.S. and 11 Asia-Pacific nations, is roundly opposed by major labor unions and most congressional Democrats.

Senate Finance Committee leaders Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., along with House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., announced the deal in a statement.

"This is a smart, bipartisan compromise that will help move America forward," Hatch said. "The renewal of TPA will help American workers and job creators unlock new opportunities for growth and promote better, higher-paying jobs here at home."

In a statement, Obama said he would seek a trade pact that benefitted American workers and that the U.S. needed to engage on trade in the face of fast-growing Asian economies...SNIP

...Trade promotion authority, commonly know as fast track, is a process that enhances the president's authority to negotiate trade pacts that Congress can only approve or defeat — and not amend — by a simple majority vote. TPA expired for new trade agreements in 2007. The administration has said without it they are unlikely to reach a deal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership...snip

MORE: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...rack/25885569/

What did Ron Paul have to say about so called "Free Trade Agreements"?



Anyone see Ron Paul comment specifically on the TPP? We know Rand is all for it.

[dannno]

We know Rand is all for it.

He isn't "all" for it, there are some good things in the bill and so I guess he is "mostly" for it. Or, at minimum, his vote won't make a difference anyway and he is choosing his battles?

I wouldn't mind hearing his take on it.

[Noob]

Congress Must Prevent Fast Track for Pacific Free Trade Deal

https://www.numbersusa.com/sendfax?id=16708&refer=faxes

[devil21]

oops my bad on the dupe: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...rade-authority

-----------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7078804.html

WASHINGTON -- Congress’ tax committees announced an agreement Thursday to speed through a bill to give President Barack Obama the fast-track authority that he will need to push mammoth new trade deals through Congress.

While many believed a deal was in the works, news that it was actually done came as a surprise to members of both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, which had been called to a hearing on the deal less than 12 hours earlier.

The “trade promotion authority” bill, or TPA, would allow the White House to cut new trade deals with Asian and European nations, and then pass them through Congress using expedited procedures. Under these rules, the deals cannot be amended or obstructed, and they get a simple up-or-down vote.

more at link

I think the TPP isn't so much a trade agreement, but rather the legal framework for foreign corporate interests operating inside the US to ship the spoils back out of the country.

[Peace Piper]

He isn't "all" for it,

Have you been paying attention? What do you call this:

Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership
03 November 2014

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a man whose personal popularity and political fortunes have increased in direct proportion to his spreading of his libertarian-leaning ideals, has now publicly embraced the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an unprecedented sovereignty surrender masquerading as a multi-national trade pact.

Paul’s speech coincided with the TPP ministerial meeting conducted October 19-24 in Sydney, Australia.

Speaking at the Center for the National Interest dinner in New York City on October 23, Senator Paul said:

...President George W. Bush understood that part of the projection of American power is the exporting of American goods and culture. His administration successfully brokered fourteen new free trade agreements and negotiated three others that are the only new free trade agreements approved since President Obama took office. Instead of just talking about a so-called “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership by year’s end.

Why would Rand Paul, a man who has in the past demonstrated a remarkable adherence to the principles of the Constitution, make his own “pivot” away from those doctrines and toward a pact as pernicious as the TPP? Perhaps the answer is found in this paragraph from a story on Paul’s speech printed in The Diplomat: "As a Republican presidential hopeful, Paul likely recognizes that his and the party’s interests are best served by trying to find some issues on which Republicans can cooperate with the administration. This would give the American electorate confidence that the Republican Party is interested in governing, and would make it harder for Democrats to use disgust with the Republican Party to mobilize the Democratic base in the 2016 election."...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ic-partnership

there are some good things in the bill

And what are those? Have you seen the full "agreement"? Try listening to what Ron said (back when one vote mattered).

and so I guess he is "mostly" for it. Or, at minimum, his vote won't make a difference anyway and he is choosing his battles? I wouldn't mind hearing his take on it.

"His vote won't make a difference"- From Ron, who's one vote made all the difference in the world, to Rand, who's vote "won't make a difference at all".

There you have it. The end of the "Ron Paul Revolution", for all to see. Sad.

Have fun with your loss of sovereignty. Maybe most Americans actually deserve it.

[Peace Piper]

Apparently most here don't care. Is it because of Rand- or a lack of interest. It's a billion dollar question.

[CaptUSA]

There is some confusion on what "fast track" does. It does not ratify the trade deal - it only allows the President latitude to negotiate the deal. If it is a bad deal, then Congress can still vote it up or down. They just can't make amendments to the deal.

So, let Obama make the deal and let's see what they finally come up with. If it sucks as bad as you think it will, then vote the whole thing down.

[CaptUSA]

Have you seen the full "agreement"?

Have you? No?

Enough with the hyperbole, then.

[Peace Piper]

There is some confusion on what "fast track" does.

I'm not "confused". I'm well aware of what "Fast Track" means. It means there will be another circus where the "agreement" squeaks by Congress with 60 or 61 votes. And the masses will be played again, like with Obamacare, the Right Wing Heritage Foundation Insurance Scam.

It does not ratify the trade deal - it only allows the President latitude to negotiate the deal. If it is a bad deal, then Congress can still vote it up or down. They just can't make amendments to the deal.

So, let Obama make the deal and let's see what they finally come up with. If it sucks as bad as you think it will, then vote the whole thing down.

Do you think Obama has the interest of the People in mind?



Here's what the liar said about NAFTA when conning the dumbed down Americans for votes

Have you? No?

Enough with the hyperbole, then.

Don't tell me what to post, "Captain". Got it?

[donnay]

[CaptUSA]

Don't tell me what to post, "Captain". Got it?

Got it. Carry on with the hyperbole.

[Natural Citizen]

Fast-track, at the moment, is really nothing more than a defense mechanism (a futile one at that) against continuing economic developments and mergers around the world.

Relevant reading... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5845807 - the whole thread...

[Peace Piper]

Excellent video. I never imagined I'd see the day when sovereignty would take a back seat here, one of the last bastions of sanity on the web. But it has. Thanks to Rand and others. The Revolution needs someone besides the son of someone to grow. It's enough with these insane family dynasties- bush, clinton, paul- someone just the other day was talking about grooming rand's kids for the future. It's like people want to go back to monarchy or something.

[Peace Piper]

Got it. Carry on with the hyperbole.

Nothing better to post, eh? You can have the last word. But for a few people, this is mostly a waste of time.

[donnay]

Most people have been brainwashed to think "Sovereignty or Sovereign Citizen" are dirty words--get away from it as fast as you can! It is sad how brainwashed the American people have become. I truly weep for the future of this country.

Case in point--just read these headlines:

Are 'sovereign citizen extremists' the latest threat to US?

Exclusive: Here is the New Homeland Security Report on 'Sovereign Citizen Extremist' Violence

Sovereign Citizens Are America’s Top Cop-Killers

Sovereign Citizen Movement

[Natural Citizen]

Most people have been brainwashed to think "Sovereignty or Sovereign Citizen" are dirty words--get away from it as fast as you can! It is sad how brainwashed the American people have become. I truly weep for the future of this country.

Case in point--just read these headlines:

TPP in America: Judge blocks County from implementing law that would harm corporate profit Nuff said...

[CaptUSA]

Nothing better to post, eh? You can have the last word. But for a few people, this is mostly a waste of time.

Listen, there are serious issues with TPP if we are to believe the selected leaks. Serious issues. Chief among them are the sovereignty issues and the implications with Chinese interests. Personally, I think the economic objections are bogus. But that's beside the point.

The point is that there hasn't been any deal reached yet, and everyone is going around talking about a deal that isn't even final. I have no faith in Obama either, but I have even less faith in trying to get other countries to remove their barriers to trade if a non-bargaining party (Congress) can make amendments to a multi-lateral agreement. Fast-track is how we see what is in the deal and then decide if we want it.

We don't need to throw up false smoke screens and ratchet up the fear-mongering over guesses. I hope you can see that that is the socialists' tactic. We don't have to adopt it.

Don't you see what you're doing? You're criticizing a deal that you haven't seen. And then when anyone calls you on it, you criticize them because they haven't seen the deal.

[Zippyjuan]

Interestingly, it is Dems who are opposed to it.

[CaptUSA]

Interestingly, it is Dems who are opposed to it.

Socialists hate it because of economic concerns. They're protectionists at heart.

But many here oppose it over sovereignty concerns.

Me? I'm agnostic until I actually see the final deal.

[Natural Citizen]

Fast-track is how we see what is in the deal and then decide if we want it.

Your thought there reminds me of the time that Nancy Pelosi said, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Of course, the phenomenon is compounded given that multinational corporations are operating from within government and in secret to scribble up how its going to be. You know what we call it when multinational corporations merge with government? I'll tell you. We call it fascism. These are mercantilists through and through.

[CaptUSA]

Your thought there reminds me of the time that Nancy Pelosi said, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Not even close! We have to write the deal to see what is in it. Then we read it. Then decide.

I'm not talking about "passing" any deal!

That post was just bad form. Not even close to the same thing.

[Natural Citizen]

Not even close! We have to write the deal to see what is in it. Then we read it. Then decide.

I'm not talking about "passing" any deal!

That post was just bad form. Not even close to the same thing.

Meh. We'll see how it works out, I suppose. I'm keeping a rather keen eye on the thing as well as other relevant outliers that are evolving congruently around the world.

Question, though. What do you mean by "we" have to write the deal? We The People seem to be out of the loop on it. Who is this we that you speak of? Who is writing it?

[Peace Piper]

Interestingly, it is Dems who are opposed to it.

It's in the 2012 DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM. Many (maybe most) of the so called Democrats that are opposing this are doing so to perpetuate the myth that both parties are not alike. It's professional wrestling without the funny garb or actual sweat. Surely you know this by now. Maybe not. Didn't you learn anything from Obamacare and the magic 60 votes?

2012 Democratic Party Platform: Double our exports by 2015 with new trade agreements

Over the last four years, we have made historic progress toward the goal of doubling our exports by 2015. We have taken steps to open new markets to American products, while ensuring that other countries play by the same rules. President Obama signed into law new trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama that will support tens of thousands of private-sector jobs, but not before he strengthened these agreements on behalf of American workers and businesses. We remain committed to finding more markets for American-made goods--including using the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the United States and eight countries in the Asia-Pacific, one of the most dynamic regions in the world--while ensuring that workers' rights and environmental standards are upheld, and fighting against unfair trade practices. We expanded and reformed assistance for trade-affected workers, and we demanded renewal of that help alongside new trade agreements.
Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Dem...Free_Trade.htm

Interestingly, it is Dems who are opposed to it.

Did you miss this? Can you understand what Ron Paul is saying in this video?



So called Republicans used to believe in sovereignty. What happened? Has Rand convinced everyone that it's not important-at least until he changes his mind again?

It would be terrible if this "Free Trade" deal cost you your job and your kids their control over their own laws. Wouldn't it. Or, maybe not.

[Natural Citizen]

Just in case there are people who don't know how this is going to go down, I'll mention it. With fast-track authority, congress, who are supposed to be representing us, can't ammend the thing. They get to debate it for 10 minutes an then a straight up or down vote happens.

[CaptUSA]

Just in case there are people who don't know how this is going to go down, I'll mention it. With fast-track authority, congress, who are supposed to be representing us, can't ammend the thing.

This is how executive agreements work. And while these do not fall under the treaty clause, they hold many of the same characteristics. The Executive branch is given latitude to form and negotiate a deal , but it cannot violate our Constitution and cannot be ratified until a majority in both houses of Congress votes on it. (Whereas a treaty would only a require 2/3rds vote in the Senate.)

I can't even contemplate how an international agreement could be crafted any other way. Congress NEVER writes those agreements. And they don't amend them. As for the 10 minute debate, that is also not true. It will follow regular procedures in the House and Senate. House debates tend to be more limited, but Senate debates can go on for a long time. Finally, if Congress votes down the agreement, it can suggest amendments which the Executive can then try to get the other parties to agree to.

The intention of the TPP is to get other nations to remove their trade barriers by agreeing to remove some of our own. Whether or not this agreement lives up to those intentions is quite another thing. But we won't know that until the deal is written. THEN... We can read it and make a decision.

You can try to paint me as pro-TPP if you like, but that isn't true. I am pro-honesty.

Ron Paul's position on these deals is that we should unilaterally remove our own trade barriers without regards to what other countries may do. This is probably the preferable method since it will bypass all of the sovereignty issues. The problem with that solution is that it is unlikely that these other regimes would ever remove their barriers. Which means we would have a more difficult time selling our wares and services in an international market. Not only would we still have to pay higher labor costs, but we would also have to pay fees and tariffs on top of that. In other words... This is something that Congress would NEVER do. If you think the political pressure against TPP is mounting on the left now, you haven't seen anything compared to the reaction from Keynesians and socialists if we talked about unilaterally removing our own protectionisms!

[Peace Piper]

Although it is called a "free trade" agreement, the TPP is not mainly about trade. Of TPP's 29 draft chapters, only five deal with traditional trade issues. One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Many would impose limits on government policies that we rely on in our daily lives for safe food, a clean environment, and more. Our domestic federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with TPP rules...

http://www.citizen.org/TPP

The Government spews the magic phrase "Free Trade" and all of a sudden people that say they never believe the Government (Obama never lies- does he) believe the government.

A phone book of fine print DOES NOT = FREE TRADE! Ron knows this, Rand needs to have a talk.

[CaptUSA]

Although it is called a "free trade" agreement, the TPP is not mainly about trade. Of TPP's 29 draft chapters, only five deal with traditional trade issues. One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Many would impose limits on government policies that we rely on in our daily lives for safe food, a clean environment, and more. Our domestic federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with TPP rules...

http://www.citizen.org/TPP

The Government spews the magic phrase "Free Trade" and all of a sudden people that say they never believe the Government (Obama never lies- does he) believe the government.

A phone book of fine print DOES NOT = FREE TRADE! Ron knows this, Rand needs to have a talk.

Sorry, PP. I have to call you out again.

First, you are talking about 29 draft chapters that were selectively leaked. The final deal has not been seen. I'm not saying it'll be a good deal, but you can't look ANY negotiation midstream and get a picture of the outcome. Items are suggested and removed just for bargaining chips. You can't simultaneously bad-mouth the deal and then tell the critics they haven't read it. That's dishonest.

Second, you linked to Citizen.org. A website for an organization that wants strict regulation on every aspect of the economy.

Finally, you talk about proposing limits on government policies that we rely on for safe food, a clean environment, yada yada... Come on. That may sell with the progressive Economic Policy Institute, but it won't sell here.

Here, you need to discuss sovereignty issues... If we had a problem with a foreign company, we might not be allowed to sue them. <- that's the winning argument for these forums. Or, if a state wanted to prevent sales of a harmful product, they might not be allowed to do so. Again, that's the type of argument against TPP that we should be talking about.

It's honesty we're after - not demagoguery.

[amartin315]

I don't understand. Is the whole "deal" being done under treaty authority (needing 2/3 vote in senate) or under the authority to regulate foreign commerce (needing a majority in both houses)? I mean, if it looks like a treaty and smells like a treaty and quacks like a treaty, isn't it a treaty? It would seem like fast track tries to by-pass the need for a 2/3 vote in the senate?

[nobody's_hero]

Interestingly, it is Dems who are opposed to it.

After NAFTA I'm shocked that any democrats would support any deal considering the damage it did to unions.

[CaptUSA]

I don't understand. Is the whole "deal" being done under treaty authority (needing 2/3 vote in senate) or under the authority to regulate foreign commerce (needing a majority in both houses)? I mean, if it looks like a treaty and smells like a treaty and quacks like a treaty, isn't it a treaty? It would seem like fast track tries to by-pass the need for a 2/3 vote in the senate?

Neither, really. It's an executive agreement. It mirrors a treaty in how it's negotiated, but requires a majority in both houses to ratify. The difference with a treaty is that a treaty is supposed to be bound by international law, whereas an executive agreement is only bound by political pressure. This is one of the problems with TPP - there have been some leaks suggesting that there would be some sort of mediation court that would oversee disputes. If that comes to fruition, then it sounds like it would be legally binding. In which case, sovereignty would most likely be violated. Further, bilateral trade agreements are usually handled through Congress, but that becomes increasingly difficult with multi-lateral agreements. (Since amendments can be added just prior to voting, it would prove useless since all of the other countries would have to agree with the amendments of our Congress. By the time we vote on a deal, it would look much different from what was agreed to and the other nations would most likely back out. Thus the desire for "fast track" to create the deal and an up or down vote by Congress. If the deal doesn't suit Congress, it doesn't get ratified.) Because of that, Congress has delegated some authority to the Executive branch. Only to negotiate a deal, though, not to enact it. Congress would still retain their power to regulate international trade.

But again, I caution... No deal has been reached, so it's premature to discuss the details. In any case, the Constitution forbids entering into any treaty or executive agreement that would violate the Constitution - even if Congress were to ratify it.