Trans-Pacific Partnership

ryan_98 · Nov 14, 2013

anyone following this? not really sure i see how this would be of benefit.

i read about it yesterday in the wapo, and then i heard a fairly interesting back and forth on democracy now (sorry, the embed doesn't seem to be working. the interview is at the link).
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/14/tpp_exposed_wikileaks_publishes_secret_trade

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...8e5d28-4c9a-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html

By Howard Schneider, Published: November 13 E-mail the writer
There isn’t much that would put tea party leaders such as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) in league with WikiLeaks and the left-leaning crowd at Public Citizen, the activist group founded by Ralph Nader.

But a proposed trade treaty with Pacific countries is stoking opposition among an unlikely cohort, drawing fire on Wednesday from a broad group of congressional Democrats and Republicans as well as a high-toned gaggle of PhD economists. It even earned a spot on the WikiLeaks circuit with the disclosure of internal negotiating documents.

The far-flung opponents all want more opportunity to review the 12-nation agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and hope to prevent the Obama administration from getting “fast track” approval from Congress.

“Fast track is history,” said Lori Wallach, head of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, after 151 House Democrats signed a letter to President Obama saying they were “deeply troubled by the continued lack of adequate congressional consultation” on the TPP talks. A similar letter was sent by a group of Republicans that included Bachmann and several other members of the Tea Party Caucus. All said they opposed fast-tracking the deal.

To U.S. Trade Representative Mike Froman, however, the swirl of opposition was to be expected ahead of the latest round of talks next week in Salt Lake City, and in recognition that the negotiations are nearing “the endgame.”

Once complete, the treaty would have to be approved by Congress, a process that is much more complex if individual members can offer amendments, senators can filibuster and lobbyists can make their case for last-minute concessions.

Froman said he remained confident that any final agreement “will attract the necessary support.” Froman has previously said the aim is to finish the talks by the end of this year.

Despite Froman’s optimism, the opposition Wednesday did bring into focus the hurdles the administration will need to clear to enact a treaty that officials argue is not as much about short-term market opening as it is about shaping global rules that countries such as China will eventually be obligated to obey.

China is not part of the treaty now. But Japan and several other Asian nations are at the table, and the administration hopes that South Korea will join — a critical mass that could dictate trading terms for the region and the world.

Wednesday’s flurry of opposition showed how many issues stand in its way, however.

WikiLeaks published negotiating documents, dating to August, that showed major divisions among the countries on issues relating to governance of Internet commerce, and patent protection in the pharmaceutical industry — and that was just one chapter of the dozens to be included in the agreement.

Activist groups seized on the disclosure, arguing that the administration was advocating patent and Internet regulations that would give more power to pharmaceutical companies to block the introduction of generic drugs, and put developing countries at a disadvantage in gaining access to information.

At a panel discussion in the Russell Senate Office Building, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) gathered a group of economists, manufacturing industry officials and labor leaders who agreed that the TPP should die unless it credibly prohibits countries from manipulating the value of their currency to gain an advantage in trade.

Economists such as C. Fred Bergsten, president emeritus of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and MIT professor Simon Johnson contended that currency interventionshad become pervasive, allowing them to boost their exports at the expense of manufacturing companies in the United States and Europe.

The practice is beyond the capacity of organizations such as the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization to control, they said, arguing that the United States could use free-trade talks to force an end to such actions.

Graham and Levin said they backed the proposal — and were willing to let the TPP die in Congress if some currency provision is not included.

“This is the place to take a stand,” Graham said. “I will be voting no if this is not part of it.”
Click to expand...

Dairy Ashford · Nov 15, 2013

It will probably help increase foreign trade.

Invisible Fan · Nov 15, 2013

I don't get the Cato guy's argument in this. Really incoherent, inconsistent, and rambly. Lori pinpointed her argument to specific provisions that Bill should've rolled over, but Bill didn't want to concede the greater argument and didn't defend his positions well.

So it appeared like his corporate masters got to him because his opening statement was full of crap given the hidden riders that sparked the controversy in the first place.

ryan_98 · Dec 9, 2013

finally looks like this is getting more scrutiny, as it should.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/08/tpp-trade-agreement_n_4409211.html

Obama Faces Backlash Over New Corporate Powers In Secret Trade Deal

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration appears to have almost no international support for controversial new trade standards that would grant radical new political powers to corporations, increase the cost of prescription medications and restrict bank regulation, according to two internal memos obtained by The Huffington Post.

The memos, which come from a government involved in the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade negotiations, detail continued disputes in the talks over the deal. The documents reveal broad disagreement over a host of key positions, and general skepticism that an agreement can be reached by year-end. The Obama administration has urged countries to reach a deal by New Year's Day, though there is no technical deadline.

One memo, which was heavily redacted before being provided to HuffPost, was written ahead of a new round of talks in Singapore this week. Read the full text of what HuffPost received here. (Note: Ellipses indicate redacted text. Text in brackets has been added by a third party.) Another document, a chart outlining different country positions on the text, dates from early November, before the round of negotiations in Salt Lake City, Utah. View the chart here. HuffPost was unable to determine which of the 11 non-U.S. nations involved in the talks was responsible for the memo.

"These are not U.S. documents and we have no idea of their authorship or authenticity," a spokesman for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said. "Some elements in them are outdated, others totally inaccurate." The spokesman declined to specify which parts were outdated or inaccurate.

The Obama administration has been leading negotiations on the international trade accord since 2010. The countries involved in the talks include Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

One of the most controversial provisions in the talks includes new corporate empowerment language insisted upon by the U.S. government, which would allow foreign companies to challenge laws or regulations in a privately run international court. Under World Trade Organization treaties, this political power to contest government law is reserved for sovereign nations. The U.S. has endorsed some corporate political powers in prior trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, but the scope of what laws can be challenged appears to be much broader in TPP negotiations.

"The United States, as in previous rounds, has shown no flexibility on its proposal, being one of the most significant barriers to closing the chapter, since under the concept of Investment Agreement nearly all significant contracts that can be made between a state and a foreign investor are included," the memo reads. "Only the U.S. and Japan support the proposal."

Under NAFTA, companies including Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical and Eli Lilly have attempted to overrule Canadian regulations on offshore oil drilling, fracking, pesticides, drug patents and other issues. Companies could challenge an even broader array of rules under the TPP language.

New standards concerning access to key medicines appear to be equally problematic for many nations. The Obama administration is insisting on mandating new intellectual property rules in the treaty that would grant pharmaceutical companies long-term monopolies on new medications. As a result, companies can charge high prices without regard to competition from generic providers. The result, public health experts have warned, would be higher prices around the world, and lack of access to life-saving drugs in poor countries. Nearly every intellectual property issue in the November chart is opposed by a broad majority of the 12 nations. The December memo describes 119 "outstanding issues" that remain unresolved between the nations on intellectual property matters. The deal would obligate nations to develop many standards similar to those in the United States, where domestic prescription drug prices are much higher than costs in other nations.

Also according to the December memo, the U.S. has reintroduced a proposal that would hamper government health services from negotiating lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. The proposal appears to have been universally rejected earlier in the talks, according to the memo.

Australia and New Zealand have medical boards that allow the government to reject expensive new drugs for the public health system, or negotiate lower prices with drug companies that own patents on them. If a new drug does not offer sufficient benefits over existing generic drugs, the boards can reject spending taxpayer money on the new medicines. They can also refuse to pay high prices for new drugs. The Obama administration has been pushing to ban these activities by national boards, which would lock in big profits for U.S. drug companies. Obamacare sought to mimic the behavior of these boards to lower domestic health care costs by granting new flexibilities to U.S. state agencies for determining drug prices.

The U.S. is also facing major resistance on bank regulation standards. The Obama administration is seeking to curtail the use of "capital controls" by foreign governments. These can include an extremely broad variety of financial tools, from restricting lending in overheated markets to denying mass international outflows of currency during a financial panic. The loss of these tools would dramatically limit the ability of governments to prevent and stem banking crises.

"The positions are still paralyzed," the December memo reads, referring to the Financial Services Chapter. "The United States shows zero flexibility."

Previously leaked TPP documents have sparked alarm among global health experts, Internet freedom activists, environmentalists and organized labor, but are adamantly supported by American corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Obama administration has deemed negotiations to be classified information -- banning members of Congress from discussing the American negotiating position with the press or the public. Congressional staffers have been restricted from viewing the documents.
Click to expand...

Cohete Rojo · Jun 12, 2015

Funny that Obama is meeting with congress on their turf to get them to fast track the TPP. Is this supposed to help cement his legacy or is he really that worried about the Chinese writing the rules (never mind that no one except the Chinese can read Chinese)? Apparently the Dems weren't happy with his and the Repubs' "thank you very much" program for laid off workers in the US. With the LIGTT and the Panama Canal expansion, what is the big rush to push this through?

Obama quest for fast-track trade bill defeated for now in House

The House of Representatives on Friday delivered a blow to President Barack Obama's signature goal of strengthening ties with Asia but could try again as soon as Tuesday to reverse defeat of a measure central to a Pacific Rim trade pact.

In a dramatic vote, Obama's own Democrats, as well as Republicans, rejected a program to give aid to workers who lose their jobs as a result of U.S. trade deals with other countries. The measure was soundly defeated in a 302-126 vote.

That was quickly followed by the House's narrow approval of a separate measure to give Obama "fast-track" authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. But the legislation is stuck in the House because of the defeat Obama and House Speaker John Boehner suffered on the first vote.

A House Republican aide told reporters Republican leaders hope to try again Tuesday to pass the worker aid portion of the bill. That would allow the entire trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation to be signed into law by Obama, but its chances were unclear.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest dismissed the failed vote as a "procedural snafu" and was confident Democrats would come around to support the measure.

Republican Pete Sessions said Democrats would have to do some "soul-searching this weekend" to figure out the future of the worker support program, known as trade adjustment assistance (TAA.)

"We're going to pass TPA," said Sessions, the head of the powerful House rules committee. "The question is going to be whether TAA is going to be in it."

The worker aid program drew heavy opposition from both parties, with 158 Republicans joining 144 Democrats in voting "no."

Trading partners such as Japan have urged the U.S. Congress to pass fast-track to help wrap up a Pacific Rim trade deal covering 40 percent of the world's economy.

PERSONAL PLEA FALLS FLAT

Obama had lobbied hard to win over skeptical Democrats and forged an unusual alliance with the Republicans who control Congress and made a last-ditch personal appeal to congressional Democrats to back his trade agenda on Friday.

Hours before lawmakers were due to vote on legislation central to the trade accord, Obama arrived at Capitol Hill with Labor Secretary Thomas Perez for the culmination of an intense effort to build support among Democrats.

Republican support was always weak for the worker aid part of the "fast-track" trade legislation and Democrats' support eroded this week following an intensive lobbying campaign by U.S. organized labor leaders.

The AFL-CIO, the country's largest labor organization, argued that funding for the worker aid program, which runs out in September, would be insufficient.

But it also rallied support for its cause by arguing that a vote against worker aid would be the perfect tactic for stopping fast track dead in its tracks.

Fast-track authority would let lawmakers set negotiating objectives for trade deals, but restrict them to only a yes-or-no vote on the finished agreement.

Many Democrats have worried that giving Obama fast-track authority to finish the TPP would result in job losses in their home districts just as the United States was making economic gains that have led to a brightening jobs picture nationally.

Boehner, the top Republican, in consultation with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, is expected to weigh next steps.

For example, they could try to make some changes to the worker training program or schedule more one-on-one meetings with lawmakers to allay their concerns.

The Senate, in a strong bipartisan vote, has already approved the package of trade measures, which includes a customs enforcement bill. That piece of the puzzle passed the House too.
Click to expand...

hlcc · Jun 13, 2015

What I don't understand is why the fascination with the currency provision. Where were all these holier than thou anti-currency manipulation politicians when QE 1, 2, 3 and the twist was in action?

Mr. Clutch · Jun 13, 2015

hlcc said: ↑

What I don't understand is why the fascination with the currency provision. Where were all these holier than thou anti-currency manipulation politicians when QE 1, 2, 3 and the twist was in action?
Click to expand...

They're dumb

rocketsjudoka · Jun 13, 2015

I haven't followed this that closely but this does seem like a big setback for Obama as this was one of his main legislative goals in his second term. Given that he hasn't been able to get Congressional action on immigration, one of his other major goals. Obama's second term isn't looking that good.

This also shows how much the Democratic party has shifted from the New Democrats of the 90's.

Major · Jun 13, 2015

rocketsjudoka said: ↑

I haven't followed this that closely but this does seem like a big setback for Obama as this was one of his main legislative goals in his second term. Given that he hasn't been able to get Congressional action on immigration, one of his other major goals. Obama's second term isn't looking that good.

This also shows how much the Democratic party has shifted from the New Democrats of the 90's.
Click to expand...

The actual fast-track did pass, and Dems voted against something they actually believe in (the retraining funds). I have a lot of reservations about the TPP itself and am curious whether Congress votes it down whenever the actual agreement is finalized, but it looks like the fast-track authority will eventually pass. They are already planning votes again next week on the TAA, and many Dems are suggesting they might not vote against it again for fear of losing it completely if the TPP does ultimately pass. The media coverage of this has been really off due to a lack of understanding of what was voted on. The media saw the TAA vote, which was rejected heavily (300+ against), and took that as a rejection of the TPP or of fast-track, but it's really not the case.

Dubious · Jun 13, 2015

As the layman, John Q. Public, howd' thafugikno. I know less than Shcultz about this, only politicians owned by lobbyist know anything about this.

Mr. Obama needs to open the documents to someone I trust, Bernie or Warren.
If Ms. Warren checks it out, I'm good. She's a good democrat.

Forums

Trans-Pacific Partnership

ryan_98 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Dairy Ashford Member

Invisible Fan Member

ryan_98 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Cohete Rojo Member

hlcc Member

Mr. Clutch Member

rocketsjudoka Member
Supporting Member

Major Member

Dubious Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Trans-Pacific Partnership

ryan_98 Contributing Member Supporting Member

Dairy Ashford Member

Invisible Fan Member

ryan_98 Contributing Member Supporting Member

Cohete Rojo Member

hlcc Member

Mr. Clutch Member

rocketsjudoka Member Supporting Member

Major Member

Dubious Member

Share This Page

ryan_98 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

ryan_98 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

rocketsjudoka Member
Supporting Member