#TPP — The Living Blog (last update: July 12, 2016)

by Crista Huff, President at Goodfellow LLC, Chief Analyst at Smart Investing in Turbulent Times

 

If you only read one paragraph herein, this is the one you should focus on:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement is not about “free trade”. It’s about the U.S. giving up sovereignty (autonomy; self-governance) to a global governing body called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission, and to a global court system that challenges many decisions made by the U.S. Congress and our states’ legislatures.

 

Table of Contents               

1. What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement?
2. Theoretical Benefits of the TPP
3. Significant Problems with the TPP: Job Loss and Trade Deficits
4. Significant Problems with the TPP: Sovereignty, “Living Agreement”, Docking Agreement, and China
5. Significant Problems with the TPP: Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)
6. Significant Problems with the TPP: Currency Manipulation, VAT Taxes and Subsidies
7. Significant Problems with the TPP: Human Rights Abuses
8. Significant Problems with the TPP: Food Safety
9. Significant Problems with the TPP: Patent Protection, Jobs, etc.
10. Protectionism: A Red Herring
11. Why did PM Stephen Harper throw Canada under the bus?
12. Who are the U.S. trade negotiators?
13. What is Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)?
14. How did TPA pass? Who would give President Obama that much power to bypass Congress???
15. Fast Track Shenanigans: Attack on Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO)
16. Fast Track Shenanigans: Attack on Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC)
17. Fast Track Shenanigans: Additional Retaliation Targets
18. Fast Track Shenanigans: Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Ted Cruz
19. What is the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)?
20. Where Do POTUS Candidates Stand on the TPP?
21. Which Members of Congress Oppose the TPP?
22. When Will Congress Vote to Ratify the TPP?
23. Activist Center
24. Related Media & Sources

 

• Markets will be expanded to four new countries with which the U.S. does not already have free trade agreements.
• Tariffs and duties will be lowered or erased.

 

“… under KORUS there has been a large increase in the size of the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea that was similarly not predicted by the [International Trade Commission] model. This trade deficit more than doubled from $13.2 billion in 2011, the last year before the agreement took effect, to $28.3 billion in 2015.”

— New Paper Finds Unpredicted Rise in Trade Deficit Overwhelmed Predicted Impact of Reduced Trade Barriers in Korea-US Free Trade Agreement — Center for Economic and Policy Research, 04-21-16

 

Every trade agreement in recent memory has led to increased American trade deficits with the partner country.

 

“Neither the president nor any one else has ventured to explain how the TPP will allow us to restore our wealth-creating industries, balance our trade, and pay down our national debt in any meaningful way — simply because it won’t.”

— Kevin L. Kearns, President, U.S. Business & Industry Council 

 

“We don’t need to enter into trade deals that don’t protect

the legitimate interests of American workers and

American manufacturing.” — Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

 

4. SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH THE TPP: SOVEREIGNTY, “LIVING AGREEMENT”, DOCKING AGREEMENT, and CHINA

The TPP requires each participating country to give up a large degree of sovereignty, not unlike what took place when European countries joined the European Union. Listen to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) make that exact comparison in this Breitbart interview from March 24, 2016. (audio at page’s bottom; begin at the 8:11 minute mark)

It becomes apparent that this trade agreement was written by and for people who have more of a globalist, “one world order” agenda. I cannot fathom how any U.S. patriot would ever vote “YES” on the TPP.

 

“… the Trans Pacific Partnership … is representing

monumental erosion of American sovereignty

and further commits us to international institutions

over which we have virtually no control,”

— Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Breitbart, 01-25-16

The TPP is a “living agreement”. It’s content can and will be altered by global courts and a global commission, forever. The U.S. does not have the legal power to say “no” to any decision made by those entities. 

On page 48 of the Congressional Research Service’s  report, The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Negotiations and Issues for Congress, dated March 20, 2015, under the subheading A “Living Agreement”, it reads, “The TPP has been envisaged as a ‘living agreement,’ one that is both open to new members willing to sign up to its commitments and open to addressing new issues as they evolve.” Then on page 54, it reiterates, “…this ‘living agreement’ has been and may continue to be expanded in terms of its membership and its trade and investment disciplines.”

 

When the U.S. votes on new decisions within the new TPP Commission, its vote carries the same exact weight as Brunei’s vote. Brunei is a country that functions under Sharia Law, and kills gay people and unmarried mothers!

 

The TPP is a “docking” agreement. Additional countries may dock onto (i.e. “join”) the TPP, after it’s ratified, without Congress’ consent. Sen. Ted Cruz specifically voted against requiring Congress’ consent! Only a “consensus” vote of member countries is needed, for a country to join the TPP. The U.S. vote carries the same exact weight as Brunei’s vote! The word consensus is not the same word as unanimous — it implies a vague majority percentage, in which the U.S. could represent a minority vote. (source: TPP Chapter 27.3.2)

China has been encouraged to join the TPP, most notably by Hillary Clinton. John Kerry welcomed both Communist China and Russia to join the TPP. Docking countries could include enemies of the U.S.; even countries with which we are at war. Imagine being at war with a country, while also being required to allow their companies and countrymen to set up shop in the United States, and compete for Department of Defense contracts!

 

Eight former secretaries of defense wrote to Congress in late April, urging them to pass the TPP, using the worn out “the TPP will contain China” adage. News flash: China does not play by anybody’s rules, and China already OWNS the Asian economy.

China established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in 2014. The AIIB is the world’s largest bank, including over $1 trillion in assets from 57 member countries. China also controls $11 trillion in private banking assets, through four Chinese banks that rank in the top ten of the world’s largest private banks. 

Do you understand that China has already written the rules of international trade, and 56 countries abide by those rules, through membership in the AIIB, and through their willingness to deal with Chinese currency manipulation?

 

“To believe that Beijing will suddenly feel chastened or constrained by a signed TPP is naive and dangerous.” 

— Kevin L. Kearns, President, U.S. Business & Industry Council 

 

5. SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH THE TPP: INVESTOR STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT (ISDS)

The Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is a trade agreement provision whereby foreign companies, and foreign countries — via state-owned enterprises (SOE’s) — can sue the U.S. in global court, bypassing the U.S. justice system. There are no provisions for appealing the court’s decisions. 

After having been burned by ISDS provisions within trade agreements, some countries seek to extricate themselves from the jurisdiction of a global court. As they proceed with the formal TPP ratification processes in 2016, the Australian and New Zealand governments plan to opt-out of the ISDS provision within the TPP (permitted under Article 29.5), as it pertains to tobacco lawsuits.

• Australia’s tobacco plain-packaging law was challenged in global court by tobacco company Philip Morris, under ISDS provisions of the Hong-Kong Australia bilateral investment treaty. Philip Morris lost that challenge on procedural grounds, which have not been made public.

Both France and Germany sought to reopen the completed negotiations of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), in order to amend their obligation to its ISDS provisions.

ISDS currently exists within other trade agreements. A large percentage of ISDS lawsuits aim for the forced removal of local environmental protections, so that foreign companies can more freely conduct business as they wish. Global courts have forced countries to pay billions of dollars in damages, and to overturn local environmental laws.

• Vattenfall, a Swedish nuclear plant operator, challenged Germany under ISDS FTA provisions, when the German government decided to phase out the use of nuclear power. 
• Under a U.S.-Ecuador bilateral investment treaty, an ISDS tribunal ordered the government of Ecuador to pay Occidental $2.3 billion, despite finding that Occidental had broken the law. The $2.3 billion judgment not only included estimated future profits from not-yet-discovered oil reserves; but also used a compound interest calculation, rather than a simple interest calculation, increasing the judgment by $500 million. (The country of Ecuador has a population smaller than the City of Los Angeles.)

Opposition to ISDS is one of the key reasons that the Seattle City Council passed a resolution in 2015, unanimously opposing the TPP. Stop here and pause, please: In a state where 40% of jobs are tied to international trade, the city council of its biggest city found the TPP so egregious that they unanimously and publicly denounced it!

• “Final TPP Text Under A Magnifying Glass” — Lawyers Weekly, 11-12-15

 

In Washington state, where 40% of jobs are tied to international trade, the Seattle city council found the TPP so egregious that they unanimously and publicly denounced it!

 

Oftentimes, ISDS lawsuits aim to change decisions made within the U.S. Justice System, Congress, or the Executive Branch, overriding the will of U.S. policymakers and voters.

• In January 2016, TransCanada challenged President Obama’s rejection of its plan to build the Keystone XL pipeline, under ISDS provisions within NAFTA. The company plans to seek $15 billion in compensation, citing similar projects with Mexican and American companies which were quickly approved. NAFTA provisions require equal treatment of all parties.
• After losing a private contract dispute in a Mississippi state court, The Loewen Group, a Canadian funeral home company, objected to the requirement that they post a bond, prior to appeal. Loewen then challenged both the Mississippi court ruling and the bond requirement in a global court, under NAFTA provisions.

“ISDS” has become somewhat of a dirty word in international trade circles, so much so that under the also-pending Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the European Union and the U.S., ISDS has been rebranded as “Investor Court Systems (ICS)”. In promoting ICS, Cecelia Malmstrom, European Commissioner for Trade, stated, “there is a fundamental and widespread lack of trust by the public in the fairness and impartiality of the old ISDS model.” (European Commission blogpost, Sept. 2015)

Will the new packaging of ISDS fool people into thinking that ICS is a solution? Certainly not the German Magistrates Association, which in February 2016 condemned these international court systems as lacking a “legal basis” and not meeting “the international requirements for the independence of courts.”

Other types of challenges that have been taken to global court by trading partners include protests against U.S. visa fees, and an increase in Egypt’s minimum wages. Whether these fees and wages were fair or not is secondary to the bigger point that, in both cases, a global court was asked to rule against and nullify sovereign decisions.

 

6. SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH THE TPP: CURRENCY MANIPULATION, VAT TAXES AND SUBSIDIES

Proponents of the TPP praise tariff reductions as the primary benefit of the trade agreement. But tariff reductions in no way guarantee a fair playing field within international trade. Foreign countries regularly use currency manipulation, border-adjustable taxes, subsidies, and a host of other arbitrary financial mechanisms to influence trade imbalances.

The Economic Policy Institute issued a lengthy report on the economics of the TPP, on March 3, 2016, stating that the TPP, “lacks an absolutely key component to keep it from doing potential damage to the U.S. economy. The missing piece of this trade and investment deal is a set of restrictions and/or enforceable penalties against member countries that engage in currency manipulation.”

The TPP lacks provisions to address foreign currency manipulation. Yet without such provisions, the cost of doing business with many Asian countries can be prohibitive. Japan, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Singapore routinely devalue their currencies, making U.S. exports more expensive to their citizens, thereby decreasing both the quantity of U.S. products sold in their countries and the profit margins on those products. In addition, currency manipulation has a see-saw effect: when U.S. products become more expensive in Asian countries, Asian products become cheaper in the U.S., thereby encouraging U.S. consumers to ignore U.S. products on store shelves, and instead reach for the cheaper, often-lower-quality foreign product.

When U.S. products sit unsold on retail store shelves, producers sell fewer products, often at marked-down prices. And the ripple effect continues: when a company is making less profit than expected, it has to cut back on spending, lay off workers, and even close its doors. It’s no wonder that 55,000 U.S. manufacturing facilities have closed their doors since NAFTA took effect!

China most recently devalued its currency in August 2015 and January 2016. Currency devaluation gives China an unfair trade advantage over the U.S., making Chinese products cheaper in America, but American products more expensive in China. 

It’s not wise to lock our country into an economic promise

with countries that manipulate currencies.

“[T]he U.S. already has proof that the lack of currency manipulation language is a major failing in modern trade deals. The three-year-old U.S.-Korea trade agreement, known as KORUS, is the model that the TPP is built upon. While supporters said it would create upwards of 70,000 jobs, it instead has led to tens of thousands of lost American jobs and an 84-percent increase in this country’s trade deficit with Korea. In fact, the U.S. rung up its highest monthly trade deficit ever with Korea in January, reaching $3 billion.” — James Hoffa, Huff Post Business, 08-17-15

 

…currency manipulation has a see-saw effect: when U.S. products become more expensive in Asian countries, Asian products become cheaper in the U.S….

 

Here are some comments about currency manipulation from Rep. Dave Trott (R-MI) from Inside U.S. Trade, July 8, 2016:

“It’s critical that any deal contains safeguards against currency manipulation to protect Michigan businesses and America’s auto manufacturers,” Trott said. “While I’m continuing to review the TPP and hear the thoughts of my constituents about this important issue, I continue to have concerns that the agreement does not contain all the necessary protections to safeguard Michigan’s important manufacturing sector.”

Foreign governments can also use VAT taxes, BAT taxes, and subsidies as a way to increase their manufacturers’ trade profitability, while making it harder for the U.S. to compete within foreign markets. Border adjustable taxes (BATs) average 17% globally, yet the U.S. does not have a comparable tax, to level the playing field, as foreign products compete with U.S. products for American consumers’ dollars.

In February 2016, Japan proposed increasing its pork subsidies, causing consternation from TPP-supporting Reps. Pat Tiberi (R-OH) and Brad Ashford (D-NE), and the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). The TPP was then submitted to the Japanese Diet (its legislature) on March 8, 2016, to begin the ratification process, along with an adjoining bill, which will, among other things, increase pork subsidies. In response to American protests, Japanese Ambassador Kenichiro Sasae said that there is nothing in TPP that prohibits this type of program. (Source: Inside U.S. Trade, March 10, 2016)

Another way that a country can make foreign competition expensive is to increase visa fees for foreign workers. In March 2016, India formally requested consultations with the WTO over a December 2015 fee increase imposed by the U.S. for H-1B and L-1 visas. The fee increases were $4,000 and $4,500, respectively, more than doubling the previous fees. Prohibitively high visa fees can nullify or impair TPP benefits awarded to a country.

 

7. SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH THE TPP: HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

The Obama administration “decided to allow Brunei to remain in the TPP even after the country announced that it would begin stoning to death gays and single mothers under new sharia-based laws.” (Source: Public Citizen)

The annual State Department Trafficking in Persons report was released on July 27, 2015. Cynics expected Malaysia to be raised from Tier 3 status — the most egregious of the potential rankings — to accommodate its image as an acceptable TPP partner country, and they were correct. Malaysia is now ranked on the Tier 2 Watch List. And after 13 years of being ranked in Tier 3, Cuba’s status was also raised in the 2015 report. Other Tier 3 countries include Belarus, Belize, Burundi, Comoros, Iran, North Korea, South Sudan, and Zimbabwe.

Three in every 1000 people, worldwide, are trapped in

labor or sex jobs into which they were coerced or deceived.

(Source: HNGN.com, 01-11-16)

“After a July 8 Reuters report on plans to upgrade Malaysia, 160 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 18 U.S. senators wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry, urging him to keep Malaysia on Tier 3. They said there was no justification for an upgrade and questioned whether the plan was motivated by a desire to keep the country in the TPP,” reported Reuters.

Malaysia dropped to Tier 3 status in 2014, due to its abysmal track record in the area of slavery and human trafficking. Since then, research has revealed additional evidence of Malaysian slavery in the area of electronics manufacturing, and discoveries of mass graves in migrant trafficking camps.

Here are the rankings, from highest to lowest:

• Tier 1
• Tier 2
• Tier 2 Watch List — includes Malaysia.
• Tier 3 — The countries in Tier 3 are reassessed periodically. The U.S. government could decide to impose pressure or sanctions on these countries. Thailand was ranked in Tier 3 in 2014 & ’15. The U.S. government did not subsequently impose pressure/sanctions on Thailand.

 

8. SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH THE TPP: FOOD SAFETY

The Obama administration frequently claims that trade pacts cannot harm U.S. consumer and environmental policies. The TPP would lower food safety standards and public health protections in the U.S. and across the globe. Member countries will be required to accept foreign food products, if the quality of those food products is deemed good enough for the originating country’s citizens. “It will be a race to the bottom as governments are forced to sacrifice food safety regulations in order to appease multi-national corporations.” (source: Center for Food Safety, 02-03-16)

Need proof? Tucked away in the December omnibus bill, Congress agreed to remove country-of-origin labeling (C.O.O.L.) on beef & pork, based on pending sanctions from the World Trade Organization, with regard to complaints related to NAFTA. Therefore, even if the TPP does not specifically remove C.O.O.L., we now see that the TPP-sanctioned global court system (ISDS) can bully the U.S. into doing so.

What’s more, ISDS courts can lower standards on food safety, the environment, and workers. “Any U.S. food safety rules on GMOs, labeling, pesticides, animal drugs, or additives that TPP member nations believe violate the agreement could be subject to challenge as “illegal trade barriers.” ” (source: Center for Food Safety, 11-14-15)

Sounds inflammatory, right? Consider this: under the TPP, a U.S.-owned food company will be able to challenge domestic public health laws they do not like through their subsidiaries in TPP countries.

• In 2011, when tobacco king Philip Morris International wanted to combat Australia’s new plain packaging laws for cigarettes, the company set up a new shop (Philip Morris Asia) in Hong Kong, then took Australia to global court under an Australia-Hong Kong bilateral trade agreement. So far, global courts are ruling in favor of Australia. But at what cost? The cost of five years’ of litigation, and the threat of being the target of similar lawsuits, can intimidate trading partners into backing away from new food, health, financial, worker, and environmental protection legislation.

TPP member countries raise farmed fish with chemicals and antibiotics not allowed in the U.S. Under the TPP, will global courts force the U.S. to roll back its seafood safety standards?

 

Right now, the World Trade Organization

is deciding whether NAFTA rules require the U.S.

to lower its dolphin-safe tuna labeling standards.

 

Right now, Mexico is fighting the U.S. via the World Trade Organization, upset that U.S. requirements for dolphin-safe tuna labeling are more stringent in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) than in other oceans.

The U.S. has agreed to raise its standards for fishermen in other oceans, to the standard for which it holds fishermen in the ETP, but that’s not the outcome that Mexico desired. Mexico wanted its fishing requirements lowered to those of the other worldwide fishermen.

In retaliation, Mexico plans to increase tariffs on U.S. exports by $472 million, annually. Mexican Economy Secretary Ildefonso Guajardo said that the new tariffs will “probably” be applied to the same product retaliation list used in an earlier dispute over cross-border trucking, including Christmas trees, onions, pears, cherries, fruit mixtures, potatoes, almonds, juice concentrates, certain red wines, mineral water, strawberries, peas, soy sauce, shampoo, dog and cat food, toilet paper and pencils.

“Mexico on Wednesday (March 23) brushed aside a new U.S. attempt to comply with World Trade Organization rulings faulting its dolphin-safe labeling requirements for tuna and said it would proceed with imposing retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports as soon as a WTO arbitrator rules on the appropriate amount for retaliation.” (source: Inside Trade, 03-23-16)

The two countries continued their fight at a meeting of the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body on April 22, 2016.

 

9. SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH THE TPP: PATENT PROTECTION, JOBS, etc.

In a March 1st report published by the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) of the U.S. Congress, the committee reports: “Unfortunately, at this stage it seems the President has fallen short in the negotiations with regard to a number of significant elements. For example, the President has failed to achieve adequate intellectual property protections for innovative American pharmaceuticals. Such protections are foundational for U.S. trade and must be robust to give American businesses the confidence to sell their products abroad. The current deal also fails to protect proprietary data stored by financial services companies. It also inexplicably denies market access for certain U.S. goods.“

 

“TPP is closed, so we can’t reopen TPP.”

— U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Inside U.S. Trade, 03-23-16

 

Anti-privacy rules — There are anti-privacy rules within the TPP which should concern all global citizens. TheStar.com reports, “the TPP features several anti-privacy measures that would restrict the ability of governments to establish safeguards over sensitive information such as financial and health data as well as information hosted by social media services.”

 

“The American Automobile Policy Council recently issued a report which stated that the TPP will threaten 90,000 automotive jobs because of its failure to include strong currency protections.” — Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), 02-02-16

In an automobile industry analysis by Peter Petri, a professor of international finance at Brandeis University, the WSJ writes that, ‘the TPP could boost imports by an extra $30.8 billion by 2025, compared with an exports gain of $7.8 billion.’” — Breitbart, 03-10-16

Ford Motor Company opposes the TPP, because of increased foreign competition in the U.S., and because the TPP does not adequately open foreign markets to U.S. goods.

And in January 2016, “Ford announced they were leaving the Japanese market; Japan being the key country in this agreement…because they say that Japan has non-tariff barriers that has limited their ability to sell cars in Japan,” commented Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

On February 2, 2016, Congressman Rick Nolan, and a bipartisan group of 23 Congresspeople, wrote a letter to President Obama, opposing the TPP on the grounds that it further harms the already-suffering iron ore mining and steel industries, and neglects to address currency manipulation.

What’s more, the letter repeatedly cites China benefitting from the TPP’s weak automobile rules of origin thresholds. Public Citizen wrote, “It would allow vehicles comprised mainly of Chinese and other non-TPP country parts and labor to gain duty free access.”

 

Athletic footwear — In April 2016, New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. came out against the TPP, in apparent retaliation to the Dept. of Defense (DOD), after an agreement soured between the two entities. While the main issue at hand is not New Balance’s participation in the TPP, the company and the DOD are conflicting in negotiations over whether the DOD will agree to “Buy American” in the area of military recruits’ athletic footwear. New Balance says that a DOD agreement to purchase American-made athletic footwear can increase its ability to expand its U.S. manufacturing facilities.

New Balance, and its supporters in Congress, seek to add athletic footwear to the Berry Amendment, which requires military uniforms and various items procured by the DOD to be 100% made in the U.S.A. (Inside U.S. Trade — 04-26-16; and also Inside U.S. Trade — 04-26-16)

On April 27, 2016, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA) put forth standalone legislation to force the Pentagon to buy U.S.-made shoes for recruits. The legislation was included in the House mark-up of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Similar legislation from previous years has failed to become law.

“Buy America” ban — “TPP would ban the application of Buy America procurement preferences with respect to all firms operating in TPP countries. Instead of reinvesting our tax dollars at home to build a strong national infrastructure and create economic growth and jobs at home, TPP would require us to give firms from the TPP nations, including Chinese state-owned-enterprise firms operating in Vietnam, equal access to U.S. government contracts.” (Source: Public Citizen)

Climate Change Agenda — The TPP rolls back environmental standards in the U.S.  In addition, the ISDS portion of the TPP invites foreign corporations to take U.S. states & municipalities to global court, in order to challenge existing U.S. environmental regulations that interfere with the foreign corporation’s profitability goals. 

Copyright infringers — Under the TPP, ISP’s will be required to police, and turn over the names of, copyright infringers. This TPP provision creates costly and onerous responsibilities to the ISP’s.

Dairy industry — The National Milk Producers Federation’s (NMPF) CEO Jim Mulhern said that the TPP “achieves less than we wanted in terms of throwing open new markets in Japan and Canada.” In fact, the NMPF determined that the net effect of the TPP on the U.S. dairy industry would be “neutral to slightly positive”, and is in fact counting on additional Asian countries (read: China) to join the TPP in the future, so as to potentially benefit the U.S. dairy industry.  (03-10-16)

And in an April 21, 2016 press release, the NMPF reiterated that it wants to maximize access to the Canadian dairy market via the TPP. A missive to that effect, signed by 47 House members, was delivered to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

Ironically, also on April 21, 2016, the C.D. Howe Institute published “Better in than Out? Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, in which it identifies the Canadian dairy industry is one of the biggest losers in a long list of Canadian industries that are expected to be harmed by the TPP.

 

Data localization — The financial services sector has been excluded from the TPP’s e-commerce chapter, which contains a ban on data localization requirements. As a result, financial companies could be required to store data on servers within TPP partner countries, a move which the companies say puts data security at risk. (Read more in “Pols Call For New TPP Data Rules For Banking Sector” — Law 360, 01-12-16)

The Obama administration is working to fix this issue in future trade agreements, such as TiSA; and with side letters with the four TPP partner countries which are not participating in TiSA. As of July 8, 2016, the House Ways & Means Committee has not endorsed the TPP, while it awaits resolution to both the data localization issue, and the conflict between the biologic patent exclusivity period allowed by U.S. law, vs. that offered within the TPP.

 

Immigration — According to CBC News in Canada, Ryan Rosenberg, a Vancouver immigration lawyer, “said he was surprised by the number of skilled occupations included in the agreement that won’t require employers to perform labour market assessments to prove no Canadians are eligible for the jobs.” Source: Expect influx of foreign workers, professionals under TPP, experts say — CBC News (Canada), 11-29-15

Intellectual property — The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) addressed the International Trade Commission in February 2016, with concerns that intellectual property rules governing biosimilar drugs (a.k.a. biologic medicines) are weaker in the TPP than they are in the U.S. (See TPP Article 18.51.) In 2010, Congress authorized 12 years of market exclusivity for U.S. pharmaceuticals, but the TPP provides only 5-8 years of patent protection. (Source: Inside U.S. Trade, 02-24-16) The weaker rules translate directly to loss of sales, and thus, job loss, throughout the industry.

Patent protection — New Zealand’s IT professionals are concerned that the TPP would force their country to establish patent protection on software, which has already been outlawed in their country, by an almost unanimous vote.

 

Pharmaceutical pricing/Biologics — The U.S. pharmaceutical industry is not pleased at the short 5-8 year exclusivity period in the TPP for new biologic drugs. Other countries, such as Peru — which has the highest pharmaceutical drug costs of any TPP member nation — are very pleased with the exclusivity period. “Peru’s outgoing trade minister … signaled that her country is not interested in taking on any new commitments on the exclusivity period for biologic drugs.” (Inside U.S. Trade, 04-14-16)

Peru currently has no period of exclusivity on biologics, so adopting the TPP rules adds a financial burden onto its nation. The trade minister essentially said that Peru got a great deal re: pharmaceutical pricing in the TPP, vs. the longer time frame desired by the U.S., and they’re not going to renegotiate it.

Peru actually has ten years to comply with the TPP’s biologics exclusivity option, and the Peruvian trade minister has stated that Peru plans to utilize that full window of time.

Doctors Without Borders is concerned about the TPP’s long-term affect on partner countries’ “reduced ability to access affordable generic medicines.” These countries “would be forced to implement a range of new provisions that will lengthen, strengthen and expand patent and regulatory monopolies for medicines.” (07-23-15)

 

U.S. steel production fell 27% in 2015, from 2014 levels!

 

Steel industry — The U.S. steel industry is facing a serious crisis from foreign competition, overcapacity, illegal dumping, and currency manipulation; from China, Japan, India, Turkey, and Korea. U.S. steel production fell 27% in 2015, from 2014 levels! It should be obvious to readers that such a dramatic reduction in steel output leads directly to job layoffs and bankruptcies.

Not surprisingly, in late April, 700 members of the United Steelworkers Union (USW) urged Congress to oppose the TPP.

Tobacco carveout — Inside U.S. Trade reported on March 31, 2016, “the administration would be unlikely to do anything to mitigate the carveout tobacco control measures from the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in TPP.”

The tobacco carveout pleases health-conscious voters, but displeases the tobacco industry and its representatives in Washington D.C. “On tobacco, multiple sources said this week that the administration is now privately indicating that it is willing to accept the fact that some Republican lawmakers who supported fast track will oppose the TPP due to the carveout.”

 

 

 

10.  PROTECTIONISM: A RED HERRING

Calling TPP opponents “protectionist” is akin to calling Tea Party and GOP activists “racist” — it’s a devious and slanderous attempt to get them to back down and shut up.

 

11. WHY DID PM STEPHEN HARPER THROW CANADA UNDER THE BUS?

Many global factions vehemently opposed the TPP, including the auto, poultry, timber, and dairy industries in Canada. It was widely believed that parliamentary elections in Canada, on October 19, 2015, would be a hurdle to the pre-election signing of the trade agreement. After all, PM Stephen Harper was running for reelection. He would not have wanted the blood on his hands, going into election season.

Thus, the TPP countries’ negotiators continually failed to agree on the terms of the trade agreement… until the early October 2015 meeting of trade ministers in Atlanta, GA.  Surprisingly, all the countries simultaneously compromised on their negotiating objectives, and signed the trade agreement!

No country’s acquiescence was more shocking to me than Canada’s. I couldn’t figure out why PM Harper would throw Canada under the bus, right before election day! Within days, he went on television, trying to appease voters and industry by promising to give $5.3 billion to Canada’s auto and dairy industries.

Harper promised $4.3 billion to dairy farmers. He also promised $1 billion to auto & parts companies over the next ten years. That sounds like a lot of money, but that’s only $100 million per year. It costs $2 billion just to build an assembly plant!

The result: Harper’s opponent, Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau, won the election by a landslide. American legislators should take note: Voting “yes” on the TPP in Congress is not going to go over well with voters.

To reiterate, PM Harper of Canada was faced with signing a trade agreement that would harm his country so badly, that he would lose his upcoming election. Despite that fact, he told his trade negotiator to sign the TPP.

I was left to ponder why a head-of-state would throw away his job, status, and power like that. And then I realized what had likely taken place. I think that various powers-that-be approached Harper, asking him to fall on his sword, and tell his trade negotiator to sign the TPP in Atlanta. In exchange, they might have promised Harper a prominent position in the new Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission.

Question: What could be better than being in charge of Canada?

Answer: Being in charge of TWELVE countries.

 

More recently, the TPP’s potential harm to the Canadian auto and dairy industries was reiterated in an April 2016 report issued by the C.D. Howe Institute, “Better in than Out? Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership”. The report also projects the TPP to “negatively impact industrial sectors, including textiles and apparel, the chemicals-plastics-rubber complex, and metal products.”

 

 

12.  WHO ARE THE U.S. TRADE NEGOTIATORS?

• Michael Froman is the U.S. Trade Representative. He went to law school with President Obama.
• The chief U.S. agricultural negotiator for the TPP was, until recent months, a former Monsanto lobbyist named Islam A. Siddiqui.

 

13. WHAT IS FAST TRACK TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY (TPA)?

In the summer of 2015, the U.S. House and Senate voted “yes” on Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). TPA allows the U.S. to negotiate and pass trade bills quickly, bypassing normal Congressional review, amendment & voting procedures. Under TPA, Congress is not allowed to amend a trade agreement; not a single sentence within the 5,544-page Trans-Pacific Partnership. Ultimately, the passage of the TPA bill means that when the TPP arrives in the House of Representatives, there will be no amendments, no filibuster, very limited debate, and a quick, simple majority up-or-down vote.

• “ ‘Fast Track’, a rider within TPA, drops the approval threshold to a simple majority – This was the contribution of Senator Ted Cruz.” — The Conservative Treehouse, 11-30-15

TPA affects all trade agreements that the U.S. will negotiate for the next six years.

 

14. HOW DID TPA PASS? WHO WOULD GIVE PRESIDENT OBAMA THAT MUCH POWER TO BYPASS CONGRESS???

There’s so much to be said on this topic. Through bribes, betrayals, coercion, secrecy, and naivete, TPA passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June 2015 by a one vote margin.

I visited Congressional offices in Washington D.C. nine times, during the first half of 2015, in order to implore Congresspeople to vote “NO” on Fast Track trade promotion authority (TPA), and the TPP. The vast majority of staffers who I met with knew only small pieces of information about TPA and/or TPP.

The good news is, now that the media has begun talking about the TPP, and Presidential candidates are publicly opposing it, Congresspeople will be more likely to vote “NO” on the TPP vote in 2016.

Here’s a list of Congresspeople who voted “YES” on Fast Track trade promotion authority (TPA) on June 16.

On Weds., June 24, the U.S. Senate also voted to approve Fast Track/TPA. The Senate also passed a bill renewing Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and tariff preferences for developing countries.

On Monday, June 29th, President Obama signed the Fast Track bill into law.

Fast forward to 2016, and some of Fast Track’s authors and “YES” voters are singing a different tune.

• Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), a co-sponsor of the 2015 Fast Track/TPA legislation, is now seeking to renegotiate the TPP. He’s “very upset”  at the intellectual property provisions within the TPP, which he feels give an unfair advantage to Australia. In addition, he’s criticized the Obama administration for failing to address his concerns. On February 12, 2016, “Hatch told reporters Tuesday afternoon that the administration’s engagement on TPP thus far was ‘pretty much lip service.’” (World Trade Online)
• “House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said Tuesday (Feb. 9) there is insufficient support in Congress right now” to pass the TPP, reports World Trade Online (02-12-16).

 

15. FAST TRACK SHENANIGANS: ATTACK ON REP. KEN BUCK (R-CO)

On Tuesday evening, June 23, Reps. Mimi Walters and Elise Stefanik called a meeting of the freshmen class in Congress, for the purpose of removing Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO-04) as President of the class. This action was being taken in retaliation for Rep. Buck’s recent “NO” vote on Fast Track/TPA. The meeting took place Thursday morning, June 25, at 8:30 AM (ET).

Rep. Ken Buck survived the meeting, with his position as President of the class intact! 

“They asked me to resign. I said, ‘I’m not resigning’.

They didn’t have the votes to remove me.”

Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO-04) also experienced retaliation for his brave stance against Fast Track/TPA, in the form of withdrawal of support from various PAC contributors. In addition, a Colorado elected official told me that the D.C. Establishment sent out feelers to determine the viability of launching a primary challenger against Mr. Buck in 2016.

 

16. FAST TRACK SHENANIGANS: ATTACK ON REP. MARK MEADOWS (R-NC)

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC-11) was stripped of his House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee chairmanship — can’t miss the irony there, folks! — following his “NO” vote on a procedural motion, related to Fast Track/TPA. (Read more in this June 22nd WND article.)

On June 25, GOP “leadership” restored Rep. Meadows’ chairmanship. (Read more from Politico.)

 

17. FAST TRACK SHENANIGANS: ADDITIONAL RETALIATION TARGETS

In June 2015, Republican “leadership” removed Representatives Trent Franks (R-AZ), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), and Steve Pearce (R-NM) from their positions on the Whip Team. In addition, “leadership” apparently used subcommittee chairmanships — then belonging to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and House Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) — to bribe other Republican Congresspeople, in an effort to convince them to vote “NO” on Fast Track-related legislation. (Breitbart, 06-20-15)

 

18. FAST TRACK SHENANIGANS: REP. PAUL RYAN AND SEN. TED CRUZ

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) were instrumental in the passage of TPA. While there were many of the usual suspects going along with the President’s Fast Track plan, including most key Democrats in Congress, and former House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), the Fast Track bill could not have passed without Rep. Ryan’s and Sen. Cruz’s support and encouragement.

Rep. Ryan was the lead Congressman in promoting TPA. Sen. Cruz provided lots of support, and co-penned an editorial with Rep. Ryan in April 2015, encouraging Congress to pass the TPA bill.

• Putting Congress in Charge on Trade — The Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2015

On June 23rd, mere hours before the Senate Fast Track vote, Sen. Cruz announced his opposition to the Fast Track bill, on the premise that Sen. Mitch McConnell had lied to him.

• Ted Cruz: Obamatrade Enmeshed in Corrupt, Backroom Dealings — Breitbart, 06-23-15

I am appalled that anybody would believe that Sen. Cruz did not know what was in the TPP, that he did not somehow understand that TPA gives the President carte blanche on his anti-American agenda, and that Sen. Cruz was “lied to” by Senator McConnell.

 

Senator Ted Cruz is a brilliant man. There is absolutely no way that he was naive about TPA, TPP, the President’s agenda, or any of the motives of the other key players on this issue. It is my belief that Sen. Cruz realized that pressure was mounting from voters, against the TPP, and that he would not be elected President if he supported the TPP. So he had to make a quick turnaround on his stance on Fast Track — a turnaround which carefully took place far too late to kill the Fast Track vote.

Normally, I’m a forgiving person, but I draw the line with Sen. Cruz. To reiterate:

1. Sen. Cruz is an establishment insider, close with the Bush family, and very comfortable with global trade. “Between 1999 and 2003, Cruz was the director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, an associate deputy attorney general at the United States Department of Justice, and domestic policy advisor to President George W. Bush on the 2000 George W. Bush presidential campaign.” (Source: Wikipedia.)(Hear more: Michael Savage DESTROYS and Exposes Ted Cruz – 3/10/16.

2. Sen. Cruz co-authored a pro-Fast Track op-ed with Rep. Paul Ryan, in April 2015.

3. In May 2015, “Cruz voted against an amendment to the Trade Deal that would require congress to be consulted if China (or other nations) were to join after the fact.” — The Conservative Treehouse, 11-30-15

• Senate Amendment 1251 “To require the approval of Congress before additional countries may join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement”…

4. Sen. Cruz voted “NO” on an amendment to Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill that would have firmly addressed foreign countries’ currency manipulation practices, in future trade agreements. The amendment was voted down in a close 51-48 vote.

• Senate Amendment 1299 “To make it a principal negotiating objective of the United States to address currency manipulation in trade agreements.”

Donald Trump commented, “To me, that amendment is more important than the deal itself. There’s no way this country can compete with those nations in the TPP because of the fact there’s no currency manipulation restriction.” — Breitbart, 04-01-16

5. On May 22, 2015, Sen. Cruz released a statement promoting TPA and its associated trade agreements, saying “By passing Trade Promotion Authority, we create a path for trade agreements to reduce government-created barriers to prosperity.”

6. Sen. Cruz had the power to kill the Fast Track bill, by influencing colleagues — including any of the 36 Congresspeople from Texas — in the months leading up to the Fast Track vote. Instead, he waited until the last possible moment to announce his opposition to Fast Track, not  because of opposition to the TPP or any trade agreement, but because of his opposition to related legislation which would reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. The Fast Track bill only passed the House by one vote. To me, his last minute “change of heart” over Fast Track seemed like a politically expedient decision, made in light of the Tea Party’s growing outrage over TPA & TPP.

7. In the spring of 2015, I contacted four of Cruz’ Senate and campaign offices, to talk to key people about why he should be voting “no” on Fast Track. None of them returned my calls. After nine visits to Washington D.C. in 2015, to fight Fast Track, I found it highly unusual not to be able to speak with a Senator’s staffers. My takeaway was that his people were told to stonewall the Fast Track opponents.

8. Sen. Cruz and his supporters have portrayed his original pro-Fast Track position as naivete; and that he was fooled by his colleagues. I say baloney! Sen. Cruz is one of the smartest, most knowledgeable elected officials in D.C.

There’s absolutely no way that Sen. Cruz did not understand that Fast Track (a) freely gives a significantly increased amount of power to President Obama and the pro-TPP contingent, and (b) that the TPP gives away U.S. sovereignty.

9. Sen. Cruz did not take an anti-TPP stance until the Nov. 10th Presidential  debate, once it became clear that almost every serious contender in the debate had also spoken out against the TPP. Why did it take him so long to speak out against the TPP?

10. Club for Growth, a pro-trade organization, was Cruz’ biggest campaign contributor in the years 2011-2014, donating $705,657 — more than twice the amount of the next biggest contributor. This alarms me. Why would Club for Growth bet so heavily on a candidate who opposes the TPP? (Source: OpenSecrets.org)

Pro-TPP Club for Growth endorses POTUS candidate Ted Cruz.

 

11. Sen. Cruz’ wife, Heidi Cruz, a managing director at Goldman Sachs, has lots of career experience with pro-trade factions.

• Mrs. Cruz was a special (temporary) member on the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); and on the CFR’s task force for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for which she completed a task force report on Building a North American Global Community. Mrs. Cruz’ co-author on that report was Robert A. Pastor, who has been called “the father of the North American Union”.

Mrs. Cruz was special assistant to Robert B. Zoellick, whose resume reads like an encyclopedia of the New World Order.

• Mrs. Cruz worked as special assistant to Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick, former U.S. Trade Representative, and former President of the World Bank. Mr. Zoellick has unparalleled experience in ushering trade agreements into existence, including the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and others with Vietnam and with Jordan. He was also instrumental in the last implementation of Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority in 2002. His resume reads like an encyclopedia of New World Order organizations, including stints on the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Project for the New American Century, the World Trade Organization; and he is a proponent of Climate Change issues.
• Ponder this analogy: a person who’s anti-abortion would never take a job as special assistant to the Director of Planned Parenthood. I know that everybody wants to pooh-pooh Mrs. Cruz’ intimate involvement in the globalist agenda, but she lived and breathed that agenda in her career! She was not an oblivious clerical worker with a 100 I.Q. She was fully involved in planning and promoting global governance. Then she went home at night and talked about it with her husband. How does a staunch Constitutionalist marry a staunch globalist? The answer is, he doesn’t. He marries somebody who’s relatively like-minded. When you meet your future spouse at work, and you work together for many years, you are usually aligned in your political stance.

I am left to believe that Sen. Cruz fully supports the TPP, and what we witnessed was his political maneuvering, as he hid his position so as to solidify his chance to become the next President of the United States.

 

19. WHAT IS THE TRADE IN SERVICES AGREEMENT (TiSA)?

20. WHERE DO POTUS CANDIDATES STAND ON THE TPP?

(alphabetically)

Hillary Clinton was a proponent of the TPP until she publicly changed her stance in 2015. Read more here: 45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes — CNN, June 2015

Sen. Ted Cruz voted against Fast Track trade promotion authority, and he intends to vote against the TPP. (Please read much more in section 16, above: “FAST TRACK SHENANIGANS: REP. PAUL RYAN AND SEN. TED CRUZ”.)

Ohio Gov. John Kasich supports the TPP.

• “Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) is the only one of five remaining presidential candidates to express support for the TPP.” — The Hill on April 11, 2016
• “Misspeaking Kasich hails ‘PTT’ trade deal” — The Hill, 01-14-16

Sen. Marco Rubio voted for Fast Track trade promotion authority, and he intends to vote for the TPP. He wrote, “We must … conclude and pass TPP …” (Source: Wall Street Journal, 04-29-15)

• “Phyllis Schlafly Issues Rubio Betrayal Memo” — Breitbart, 02-05-16
• “Schlafly unloads on Rubio: ‘He betrayed us all'” — WND, 02-05-16
• “EXCLUSIVE- Cruz Campaign: Rubio’s ‘I’m Not Going to Tell You Until You Vote for Me’ Stance on Obamatrade Is ‘Unacceptable’” — Breitbart, 01-30-16
• Sen. Rubio voted “NO” on an amendment to the Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill that would have firmly addressed foreign countries’ currency manipulation practices, in future trade agreements. — May 22, 2015

Sen. Bernie Sanders opposes the TPP. In a March 11, 2016 tweet, Sen. Sanders wrote, “If elected, I won’t send the TPP to Congress and will continue to fight efforts to pass it. I urge @HillaryClinton to join me.”

Donald Trump opposes the TPP, most often citing trade deals leading to U.S. job loss, currency manipulation, and China’s current &  future involvement (e.g. through the docking agreement facet of the TPP, and through the TPP’s weak automobile rules of origin thresholds).

• “China one of great thefts of all time: Trump”, The Hindu 02-18-16

“Rubio is the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and

mass immigration, making one last attempt

to pull off one big con.” — Phyllis Schlafly, Feb. 2016

 

21. WHICH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OPPOSE THE TPP?

(this section is a new work in progress)

Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY27) — op-ed  02-06-16

Frank Guinta (R-NH), Rep. French Hill (R-AR), and Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) want to include financial services in the ban on data localization requirements within the TPP.

House Ways & Means Committee Ranking Member Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) — “Levin Opposes TPP ‘As Negotiated,’ Citing Four Key Shortcomings”, Inside U.S. Trade 02-19-16. Key areas of opposition: worker rights in Mexico, Vietnam and Malaysia; automotive rules of origin; currency manipulation; and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS).

 

22. WHEN WILL CONGRESS VOTE TO RATIFY THE TPP?

The TPP was ceremoniously signed by world leaders on February 4, 2016.

It is well-understood, among TPP partner countries, that the TPP will not be renegotiated to fix problems within it. This sentiment was emphasized in 2016 by Australia, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Chile, Japanese Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Koichi Hagiuda, Mexican Economy Secretary Ildefonso Guajardo, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, Peruvian Minister for Foreign Trade and Tourism Magali Silva, and U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.

Next step: The TPP must be ratified by all 12 nations. Vietnam is expected to take 18 months to two years, from the October 2015 signing, to ratify the TPP, while Japan already submitted the TPP to its legislature for ratification on March 8, 2016.

• “U.S. officials have said that some TPP countries are holding off on their ratification process until it is clearer whether the U.S. Congress will approve the deal,” reports Inside U.S. Trade, 04-14-16.
• Peru’s executive branch is currently in the process of submitting the final TPP deal to its Congress for a vote on ratification. (Inside U.S. Trade, 04-14-16.) There will be national elections in Peru, in July 2016, which will likely disrupt the continuity of personnel at the nation’s trade office, and within the executive branch.

 

In the U.S., the President must first submit an administration-wide implementation and enforcement plan for the TPP to Congress. The office of the U.S. Trade Representative is actively working on the implementation and enforcement plan, during the month of April 2016.

Then after 30 days, he may sign implementing legislation for the TPP. President Obama stated, at a National Governors Association meeting on February 22, 2016, “We’re going to … enter this agreement, present it formally with some sort of implementation documents to Congress at some point this year and my hope is that we can get votes.”

• At an April 24 press conference in Germany, President Obama said that he anticipates the TPP moving forward after the U.S. primary election season, with a TPP vote taking place during a lame-duck session of Congress. (Inside U.S. Trade, 04-25-16)
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue anticipates a TPP vote after the November general election, because an earlier vote would put “four or five” Republican seats at risk. (Inside U.S. Trade, 04-25-16)
• “TPP supporters are hoping for a U.S. congressional vote in a lame-duck session, but Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) said on April 12 that is not probable because the votes are not there.” (Inside U.S. Trade, 04-14-16.)
• Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has stated that he does not want the vote to take place until after the November elections.
• “House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said he would prefer to pass the deal sooner if the White House resolves a handful of congressional issues.” (The Hill, 04-14-16)
• House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) does not currently see enough support in the House for a “YES” vote.
• In a March 3rd Senate Finance Committee meeting, “Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said that Congress is still scrutinizing and evaluating TPP and gave no indication on how he wants to proceed,” reported Inside U.S. Trade.

 

 

President Obama and Sen. McConnell know that if they force a vote on the TPP before the November 2016 elections, many of the Congresspeople who vote “YES” will anger their constituents and lose their elections.

 

Congress will then have 90 legislative days in which to vote on ratifying the TPP. (That’s legislative days, not calendar days.) The House of Representatives has only 54 legislative days this year, between June 1 and December 31. Even if President Obama signs implementing legislation on June 1, the House of Representatives can postpone the TPP vote until 2017, when an anti-TPP President might be in office.

The legislative process for the TPP vote is prescribed by Fast-Track Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation, which passed in 2015.

1. The President signs implementing legislation and submits it to Congress.
2. Congress has up to 90 legislative days in which to study, write, and vote on the TPP bill.

• The House Ways & Means Committee has up to 45 legislative days in which to put out a TPP implementing bill.
• The House of Representatives must then vote on the TPP bill within 15 legislative days.
• The Senate Finance Committee has 15 legislative days in which to vote on the TPP bill.
• The U.S. Senate must then vote on the TPP bill within 15 legislative days.
• The House and Senate may act concurrently, if they so choose.

You might ask, “If the President wants Congress to vote on the TPP in 2016, why doesn’t he submit the implementing legislation today?”

Here’s a likely answer: the pro-TPP economic studies from the World Bank, and from the Peterson Institute, showed dismal U.S. economic results. The pro-TPP faction cannot effectively use those studies to bolster their case, when selling Congress on the TPP.

However, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) is expected to release another pro-TPP study on May 18, 2016. Perhaps this new study, by hook or by crook, will project U.S. economic benefits from the TPP, thereby giving the pro-TPP people some assistance when presenting their case to Congress.

And here’s a cynical, yet also-probable answer: President Obama and Senator McConnell know that if they force a vote on the TPP before the November 2016 elections, many of the folks who vote “YES” will anger their constituents and lose their elections. Sen. McConnell has publicly referred to the re-election risk for industrial state Senators if they vote “YES” on the TPP, prior to the Nov. 2016 elections (Inside U.S. Trade, Dec. 18, 2015). That’s why the vote is more likely to take place after the November general elections, in a lame-duck session.

The post-election Congressional schedule would most likely include one week between the general election and the Thanksgiving recess, and three weeks between the Thanksgiving recess and the Dec. 16 adjournment date.

 

On Feb. 9, 2016, Rep. Paul Ryan told The Journal Times,

“There are enough concerns about this agreement, some that I also have, where I don’t see enough support for it right now.”

* U.S. Capitol switchboard — (202) 224-3121.

Congresspeople pay attention when influential business people contact them regarding the TPP. Encourage your business contacts to pursue this issue with their local Congressperson.

Take additional action:  Here’s a link to the list of Congresspeople who voted “YES” on Fast Track trade promotion authority (TPA) in June 2015. Call them. Ask them to vote “NO” on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement.

It’s slightly more helpful to call Republicans, than it is to call Democrats. The TPP already has significant Democrat opposition. The few Democrat holdouts have probably dug in their heels. On the contrary, Republican sentiment against the TPP is growing. We can reasonably expect some Republican House members, who previously voted “YES” on Fast Track, to now vote “NO” on the TPP.

There is no point in badgering your U.S. Senators to oppose the TPP. There are not enough anti-TPP Senators to win this vote. However, if you can convince a U.S. Senator to use his/her influence with Congresspeople, that is a task worth accomplishing.

 

24. RELATED MEDIA & SOURCES

New Paper Finds Unpredicted Rise in Trade Deficit Overwhelmed Predicted Impact of Reduced Trade Barriers in Korea-US Free Trade Agreement — Center for Economic and Policy Research, 04-21-16

“Better in than Out? Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership” — C.D. Howe Institute, 04-21-16

“CONGRESS IS STARTING TO UNDERSTAND THAT FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS DON’T WORK” — Huffington Post, 04-17-16

“Trump Camp: Ted Cruz Is ‘The Reason Why Obamatrade’ Passed” — Breitbart, 03-29-16

“Jeff Sessions: America’s Sovereignty at Stake in 2016 Presidential Election” — Breitbart, 03-24-16

“This GIF Shows How China Trumps the U.S. on Trade” — HowMuch.net, 03-23-16

“66 percent of Republicans oppose Pacific trade deal after they find out what’s in it, Pat Caddell-ALG poll shows”  — Americans for Limited Government, 03-10-16

“Rubio, Cruz, Kasich All Backed Obamatrade, Pretend They Didn’t at Miami Debate” — Breitbart, 03-10-16

“Trans-Pacific Partnership, currency manipulation, trade, and jobs” — Economic Policy Institute, 03-03-16

“A Pacific Trade Deal Won’t Stop China’s Reckless Rise” — Kevin L. Kearns, President, U.S. Business & Industry Council

“KOREA FTA SPURRED MASSIVE TITANIUM IMPORTS” — Michael Stumo, CEO, Coalition for a Prosperous America, 02-17-16

“Exclusive — Donald Trump On Ford, Carrier, Shipping Jobs To Mexico: ‘I’m The Only One Who Understands What’s Going On’” — Breitbart, 02-12-16

“Ryan: Votes not there for trade agreement” — Journal Times, 02-09-16

“Association of German judges slams US-EU trade deal for its special corporate courts” — BoingBoing, 02-09-16

“Exclusive — ‘It’s A Terrible Deal,’ Donald Trump Says About Just-Signed Obamatrade“ — Breitbart, 02-05-16

“Phyllis Schlafly Issues Rubio Betrayal Memo” — Breitbart, 02-05-16

As TPP Signing Nears, Experts Warn U.S. Manufacturing Will Suffer — Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), floor speech, YouTube, 02-02-16

Exclusive — Jeff Sessions: ’Matter Of Supreme Importance’ GOP Nominee Can ‘Negotiate Better’ Trade Deals Than Obamatrade — Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Breitbart, 01-25-16

Ford Shutting Japan, Indonesia Operations on Lack of Profit — BloombergBusiness, 01-25-16

The Polaris Project — a website for information about human trafficking.

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Facts and Figures for SOTU Prep — Public Citizen, January 2016

It’s Time to Meet the Cruz’s… — The Marshall Report, 12-04-15

Final TPP text under a magnifying glass — Lawyer’s Weekly, 11-12-15

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: THE TRANS-PACIFIC TRADE (TPP) AGREEMENT MUST BE DEFEATED

Big Sugar’s Fight to Keep U.S. Import Limits Delaying Trade Deal — August 2015

Stop the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) — The John Birch Society, 08-24-15

• TiSA gives the “World Trade Organization (WTO) unprecedented control of the service sector…”

America’s Final Independence Day — Crista Huff, July 2015

Has US desire for Asia trade deal trumped slavery with Malaysia’s ranking? — The Christian Science Monitor (07-13-15).

45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes — CNN, June 2015

5 Ways the TPP Hurts U.S. Jobs and the Economy — Crista Huff, June 2015

CRITICAL ALERT: TOP FIVE CONCERNS WITH TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), 05-04-15

Why Multi-National Corporations Are Behind The Trans Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement — by Crista Huff, April 2015

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose” — by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, The Washington Post, 02-25-15

“Germany and France want to reopen CETA to amend ISDS provision” — Canadians.org, 01-26-15

“From Public Citizen: Top 10 Most Pernicious Investor-State Dispute Settlement Lawsuits” — Naked Capitalism, October 2014

* * * * *

Investment Disclaimer

Release of Liability: Through use of this website viewing or using you agree to hold www.GoodfellowLLC.com and its employees harmless and to completely release www.GoodfellowLLC.com and its employees from any and all liability due to any and all loss (monetary or otherwise), damage (monetary or otherwise), or injury (monetary or otherwise) that you may incur.

Goodfellow LLC and its employees are not paid by third parties to promote nor disparage any investment. Recommendations are based on hypothetical situations of what we would do, not advice on what you should do.

Neither Goodfellow LLC nor its employees are licensed investment advisors, tax advisors, nor attorneys. Consult with a licensed investment advisor and a tax advisor to determine the suitability of any investment.

The information provided herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness. When information is provided herein from third parties — such as financial news outlets, financial websites, investment firms, or any other source of financial information – the reliability or completeness of such financial information cannot be guaranteed.

The information contained on this website is provided for informational purposes only and contains no investment advice or recommendations to buy or sell any specific securities. This is not an offer or solicitation for any particular trading strategy, or confirmation of any transaction. Statements made on the website are based on the authors’ opinions and based on information available at the time this page was published. The creators are not liable for any errors, omissions or misstatements. Any performance data quoted represents past performance and past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Investments always have a degree of risk, including the potential risk of the loss of the investor’s entire principal. There is no guarantee against any loss.

2 Responses to “#TPP — The Living Blog (last update: July 12, 2016)”

1. Ron A says:

   April 16, 2016 at 3:27 pm

   Caught you on I Spy Radio Show… wow! Had no idea just how horrible the TPP is. Keep up the good work (even though I’m STILL baffled by your support for Cruz, despite his dishonesty on this).

   Will listen to it again when they post the podcast

   For anyone else’s FYI, it’s here —
   http://ispyradio.com/why-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-is-so-bad-for-america/

   Reply
   • Crista Huff says:

     April 16, 2016 at 8:51 pm

     Ron, the POTUS race is complicated for me, because of both “R” candidates’ serious drawbacks. I don’t actually “support” either of them. I liked Rand Paul and Rick Perry. Must be the alliteration of their initials … I was an English major. 🙂

     Thanks for listening to the show! Keep on fighting the good fight.

     Reply