TPP News from Crista Huff — November 1, 2016 (revised Nov. 3)

by Crista Huff

 

WILL THERE BE A LAME DUCK VOTE ON TPP RATIFICATION?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement is likely to receive a lame duck ratification vote, because the TPP is President Obama’s legacy legislation. He will likely pull out all the stops in order to get it passed in 2016. Many elected officials will tell you that they are against the TPP, or that there will not be a ratification vote during a lame duck session of Congress, but these also happen to be people who are trying to win elections next week — for themselves, and for their allies. They know that American voters are opposed to the TPP, and they are therefore motivated to get voters to relax about the threat of a lame duck vote.

Let’s see what Congresspeople and world leaders are saying about the timing of the vote. Here’s a comment on the timing of the TPP vote from New Zealand’s ambassador to the U.S., Tim Groser, published on October 12 by Inside U.S. Trade:

“I don’t believe there’s anything other than a remote theoretical chance that [U.S. Trade Representative] Mike Froman and his president are not going to push like hell in the lame-duck to get this through,” Groser said. (10-11-16)

 

Here are a few additional pertinent comments:

“[House Speaker Paul] Ryan, asked by radio host Laura Ingaham ‘will you say today that we will not take up the trans-pacific partnership in the lame-duck session,’ offered no wiggle room in his answer. ‘We’re not going to bring that up in the lame duck, and I think I can say that safely because – even if we wanted to – I think he’s got to fix this deal,’ Ryan said, presumably referring to the president.” — Inside U.S. Trade, 10-07-16

“Both House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have now consistently stated that TPP will not come to a vote in either chamber during the lame-duck…” — Inside U.S. Trade, 10-13-16

“Enough members of Congress will ultimately support the Trans-Pacific Partnership in a post-election lame-duck session largely due to the negative geopolitical implications of failing to ratify the deal, according to Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Russel.” — Inside U.S. Trade, 10-13-16

Jackson Cox, Chairman of Asia-Pacific Council of American Chambers of Commerce is assuming that there will be a lame-duck vote, and has planned an early December door-knock campaign on Capitol Hill. “We are acting as if TPP will be on the agenda for the lame-duck.” (Inside U.S. Trade, 10-28-16) Cox’s colleague from the American Chamber in Australia sees Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as the lynchpin to the U.S. ratification vote.

 

Here are TPP comments between Sen. Chuck Schumer and CNBC‘s interviewer John Harwood, dated 10-18-16:

HARWOOD: Tell me about, in terms of getting stuff done, the rest of the year. There has been a lot of hope from the White House, the administration, some of the business community and others who believe in trade expansion, that the Trans-Pacific Partnership can get done before the next president takes office. Is that going to happen?

SCHUMER: There’s only one person who will decide that. Just one: Mitch McConnell. If he puts it on the floor, it could get done. If he puts it on the floor, it may well get its 51 votes in the Senate even if some Democrats change their views. But it’s an iffy question for the House to get a majority.

I don’t know what he’s going to do. That’s what got me onto Bob Dylan: You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. So the Republican electorate is more against free trade than the Democratic electorate. That’s an interesting fact that I didn’t know until this year.

 

Update from November 3: The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) revealed to the trade press this week that they are willing to relent on their goal of 12 years of biologic patent exclusivity in the TPP. The 5-8 years of patent exclusivity within the TPP had been a huge stumbling block for both PhRMA and Congress. PhRMA said that they’d rather have the TPP pass as is, vs. having it fail.

This is a huge game-changer, putting an ultimate Congressional “NO” vote in jeopardy.

 

WHAT’S BLOCKING A “YES” VOTE ON THE TPP?

There are almost as many reasons to opposed the TPP as there are members of Congress. The biggest Republican voter sticking points to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement continue to be the sovereignty giveaway, the economic history of trade deals leading to trade deficits, manufacturing bankruptcies and job loss.

Voters on the Left don’t like the TPP either. This excellent article from Food & Water Watch explains what’s going on with foodborne illness from seafood imports into the U.S., TPP food safety standards, and TPP partner countries’ fish farms: “Toxic Buffet: How the TPP Trades Away Seafood Safety”, October 25, 2016.

The Sierra Club recently published an environmental-impact analysis pertaining to the weakness of the environmental chapter of the TPP.

The biggest Congressional sticking point to TPP ratification continues to be the biologic patent exclusivity time periods outlined in the TPP — 5 or 8 years, depending on the details — vs. the current 12 years of biologic domestic market exclusivity in the U.S.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is holding firm on demanding 12 years of patent exclusivity, via side agreements to the TPP. The big pharmaceutical organizations whom he represents have purportedly expressed a willingness to accept a “YES” vote on U.S. TPP ratification, even if progress is not made on the biologic issue.

While it is true that some TPP partner countries have begun the ratification process within their governments, other countries are postponing their TPP votes, while waiting to see how the U.S. proceeds. The Canadian Parliament extended its consultation period for TPP to Jan. 27, 2017. Canada will not take a stance on the TPP until they see the outcome of the U.S. lame duck vote; although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau definitely believes the Canadian ratification vote will be a “YES” vote.

 

NEW POTENTIAL “NO” VOTES ON THE TPP 

Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA-10) came out against the TPP on October 21, citing problems with dispute resolution, Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), and economic devastation on families and towns resulting from trade with China.

Sen. Marco Rubio said on October 30 that he has enough concerns about the TPP that if the vote were held today, he “probably could not support it”. His concerns center on the TPP’s biologic patent exclusivity time period, its effect on the auto industry, and job creation.

 

NAME-CALLING AND “PROTECTIONISM” — WHO’S REALLY HIDING FROM THE TRUTH?

Opponents to the TPP have valid concerns about jobs and the U.S. economy. We are not “protectionist” from the point of view that protectionists want to ignore foreign countries and just do business within the U.S., or worse, that we are xenophobes. (I studied nine years of Spanish and French, lived in New York City, and voluntarily visited four foreign-language and third world countries. Does that sound xenophobic?) We are “protectionist” from the point of view that trade cheating is greatly harming U.S. workers, jobs and the economy, and we want to put an end to the trade cheating.

Protectionism is not about hiding in a cave from fear of foreigners. It’s about protecting your neighbor’s ability to earn a living and support their family. “First, do no harm.”

I love this article from Michael Stumo at Coalition for a Prosperous America, MY BBC WORLD RADIO DEBATE WITH GLOBALISTS. I won’t re-cap the article: I want you to read the whole thing because it’s so incredibly well-stated. Please read the article, then leave comments for me, below!

 

 

* * * * *

Crista Huff is a stock market expert and a conservative political activist. She works with End Global Governance and issues groups to defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Send questions and comments to research@goodfellowllc.com.