SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
fasttrack authority
ACTION ALERT: NPR Celebrates Fast-Track Victory With an All-Corporate Lobbyist Segment
Jun 28, 2015
After the Senate joined the House of Representatives in granting President Barack Obama fast-track authority to negotiate trade agreements, National Public Radio aired one report (Morning Edition, 6/25/15) on the legislative action that paves the way for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and other corporate-friendly international deals. The report, by correspondent Yuki Noguchi, had three sources:
- Business Roundtable president John Engler, "president of the Business Roundtable, which represents more than 200 member companies who took to Capitol Hill armed with data."
- National Retail Federation vice president Jonathan Gold, who "says 7 million retail jobs are directly or indirectly tied to trade."
- National Association of Manufacturers vice president Linda Dempsey, who says the 1993 US/Mexico/Canada trade agreement "NAFTA has actually made US manufacturing overall much stronger and much more competitive."
That's it-according to a search of the Nexis news database, those three corporate lobbyists are all the voices National Public Radio chose to air on the victory of fast-track (or "fast-tract," as the NPR News headline writer had it). What of the literally thousands of labor, environmental and other public interest groups that strenuously opposed giving Obama fast-track authority? They were relegated to a one-line summary from Noguchi:
Labor and environmental groups criticized the fast-track deal, calling it worse than the North American Free Trade Agreement passed two decades ago.
To which manufacturing lobbyist Dempsey was allowed to retort: "The critics are just wrong." So much for the opponents' perspective.
To her credit, Noguchi does correct Dempsey's claim about NAFTA, saying, "After an initial bump following NAFTA, manufacturing employment declined." But that raises the question: If business lobbyists are presenting a distorted picture of the impact of trade deals, why are they the only ones you're allowing to talk to your listeners about trade deals?
ACTION: Please ask NPR ombud Elizabeth Jensen to investigate why NPR News talked only with corporate lobbyists to cover the victory of fast track.
CONTACT: You can contact Ms. Jensen via NPR's contact form or via Twitter: @ejensenNYC.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Six Ways TPP Opponents Have Won--Even as Fast Track Advances
Critics of the TPP forged relationship with foreign allies, firmed up union positions, and forced some concessions on the secrecy of the text.
Jun 25, 2015
I tried to stay emotionally distanced from this one. It didn't work. When the White House and Republican leaders got the votes they needed in the Senate to advance "fast track" Trade Promotion Authority on Tuesday, June 23, it was crushing.
Democratic congressional leaders did not roll over for this vote.
All observers agree that fast track will soon become law, making it easier for President Barack Obama to pass the controversial trade pacts in the works with Pacific Rim nations and the European Union. That will be a serious setback to the movements for the environment, labor rights, and affordable pharmaceuticals, among others.
But after observing painful trade votes for more than 20 years, this one left me feeling that opponents should be holding their heads higher than ever before as they regroup for the next phase of the fight. Here are a few reasons why:
1. A diverse progressive coalition showed that people power can put up a real fight against big money.
The votes on fast track could not have been closer. The House vote was a razor-thin 218 to 208, while the Senate's vote to cutoff debate passed without a single vote to spare.
The opposition included all the regulars from labor, environmental, faith, immigrant, food safety, and consumer groups. But some newish players also stepped up, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation on Internet access, as well as global health, civil rights, and civil liberties groups.
One result was more airtime for trade-related concerns that have been largely ignored in the past, including the anti-democratic investment rules and impacts on seafood safety, access to medicines, and climate. These new relationships will pay off in future fights. As Leo W. Gerard, international president of the United Steelworkers, put it, "Progressive forces have new energy from this fight."
2. The battle exposed deep divisions within the United States, empowering allies in other countries.
U.S. Democratic congressional leaders did not roll over for this vote, so opponents in other countries can now count them on their side. And who knows what will happen when citizens of other countries, who are likely to be hard-hit by these deals, see the final text of the agreement?
Unions are a critical source of donations and boots on the ground for electoral campaigns.
The example of the Free Trade Area of the Americas is instructive here. After 11 years of negotiations, those 34-country talks collapsed in 2005. President George W. Bush had fast-track authority to pass the FTAA, but that turned out not to matter. In the end, Brazil and other South American countries refused to give in to the U.S. corporate-driven agenda.
3. The showdown drove a shift in the discourse.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who in 1993 voted in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement, rebuffed intense pressure from President Obama to support fast track and called for a "new paradigm" on trade. She called for global engagement that "enables voices from all aspects of the world's economies to be heard."
Even former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, another NAFTA promoter, stated that "A reflexive presumption in favor of free trade should not be used to justify further agreements." There were also signs of growing alliances across political lines, with perhaps the most notable example being a joint op-ed by the libertarian Cato Institute and the progressive Public Citizen.
4. Labor unions made strong vows to punish pro-fast track Democrats.
The AFL-CIO and other unions froze campaign contributions to members of Congress starting in March to pressure them to vote the right way. In the aftermath of Tuesday's Senate vote, Communications Workers of America President Chris Shelton said, "for those who opposed the broadest coalition of Americans ever, we will find and support candidates who will stand with working families. That's how we'll take on the corporate Democrats who oppose a working family agenda."
This battle was not just about fast track.
Unions are a critical source of donations and boots on the ground for electoral campaigns. A strong message that labor support should not be taken for granted could change the dynamic of the party for years to come.
5. The strong opposition to Obama's trade agenda augurs well for other progressive fights.
This battle was not just about fast track. It was a reflection of increased concern about inequality and the sense that the rules have been rigged against ordinary Americans in favor of large corporations and the wealthy. We can build on this in future efforts over taxes, budgets, labor rights, and other issues.
6. The demands to see the secret text got some results.
WikiLeaks made public two draft chapters of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, giving ammo to the opposition and making many wonder why we were having to rely on Julian Assange for this information.
While the fast-track bill doesn't do anywhere near enough to respond to secrecy concerns, it does require the executive branch to make public the full text of new trade agreements for 60 days before they are sent to Congress. Then lawmakers need to wait at least another 30 days before voting.
In the TPP's case, this could help stretch out the timeline into the heat of election season, when Democrats will be even more sensitive to pressure from their base. As Public Citizen President Robert Weissman noted, "When the inexcusable and anti-democratic veil of secrecy surrounding the TPP is finally lifted, and the American people see what is actually in the agreement, they are going to force their representatives in Washington to vote that deal down."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Fast Track Fight Is Effectively Over: It's Happening
But the fight over the TPP and other corporate-friendly deals is just getting started
Jun 24, 2015
The Senate narrowly invoked cloture on fast-track trade legislation Tuesday morning, setting up a final vote Wednesday that will surely send the bill to President Obama's desk for his signature.
In so doing, Congress will surrender remarkable authority to Obama and his successors. For the next six years, Congress will be unable to amend any trade deal signed by the president, and only 50 votes will be required for Senate passage--a reduced burden that hasn't been granted to minimum-wage hikes, equal-pay legislation, gun control, campaign-finance reform, nor any other non-budgetary legislation of the Obama era.
In exchange, these future administrations will promise to be guided by negotiating objectives in the fast-track legislation on human rights, labor standards, and the environment, though many experts and congressional Democrats have decried the objectives as meaningless--in some cases they are satisfied if the president self-certifies that unspecified "progress" was made towards the negotiating goal.
The Senate wasn't supposed to have to vote again; it passed fast-track legislation weeks ago and sent it to the House. But House liberals rebelled and temporarily killed the House package by voting down a program that provides job training to workers screwed over by trade deals. This program was a Democratic priority, but one they strategically killed in order to hopefully stop the entire fast-track passage.
But House Speaker John Boehner held another vote last week and sent fast track back to the Senate without the trade-assistance program, and so the Senate had to vote again on this bill.
There was substantial doubt that Senate Democrats would back fast track without trade assistance for workers, but they did--resting on assurances from congressional Republicans that they will pass the assistance program soon.
The final vote was 60-37, achieving cloture by the thinnest possible margin. (Three senators were absent; Tennessee Republican Bob Corker was delayed getting to Washington, but said he would have voted for fast track; Senators Robert Menendez and Mike Lee both voted "no" last time.)
After the vote, Senator Sherrod Brown took the Senate floor and declared, "This is a day of celebration in the corporate suites of this country, to be sure."
Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders added that "this trade agreement was supported by virtually every major corporation in this country, the vast majority of whom have outsourced millions of jobs to low-wage countries all over the world."
Thirteen Senate Democrats helped get fast track over the line: Michael Bennet of Colorado, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray of Washington, Tom Carper and Chris Coons of Delaware, Dianne Feinstein of California, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner of Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Bill Nelson of Florida, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire.
Right off the bat, some progressive activists pledged to exact a price for supporting fast track. "The Senate Democrats who allowed Fast Track should know that this vote will be remembered, it will not be erased, and we will hold you accountable," said Jim Dean of Democracy for America in a statement. "Accountability could mean primaries now or in the future, taking no action in your next difficult election, or support for progressive alternatives in future Senate leadership elections. Make no mistake, the memory of this clear betrayal of working families will follow you for years to come."
The threat about Senate leadership elections is particularly notable; Senator Patty Murray is reportedly seeking the whip post in the new Senate, and provided a crucial vote for fast track. The current whip and her presumed competitor for the post, Senator Dick Durbin, voted against fast track.
Once Fast Track passes tomorrow (there is only a 50-vote requirement post-cloture, which this bill will easily achieve) and Obama signs Fast Track, the fight turns to the highly controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Sometime in the late summer or early fall, the Obama administration will finally release the full TPP text, after the president signs it. After 90 days, Congress can vote on it.
Without question, fast track makes the TPP much more likely to pass. No amendments can gum up the process or chase off support, and we already can easily see there are 50 votes in the Senate based on the fast-track votes. But the House remains no sure thing for the TPP. Fast track twice passed by only two votes.
When the TPP actually comes out, there will be some really ugly details that are likely to enrage liberals and solidify opposition among Democrats. For months the White House has been dodging some criticisms of the TPP by stressing that the text isn't final, but that will no longer be an option.
The unknown details of the TPP, incidentally, are what Hillary Clinton cites for not yet having an official position on the trade deal. If the Democrat base gets truly riled up when the details do come out, she may end up opposing the deal. This would give cover for every congressional Democrat to do the same.
Members of the House will also be in the thick of their reelection campaign this fall, and increased progressive activism and actual primary challengers will no doubt make a TPP vote even harder.
On the Republican side, Boehner will almost surely have a more difficult time gathering Republican votes for the TPP than he did for fast track. One argument frequently made by Republicans during the congressional fast-track debate was that it benefited the GOP, too--that it was also a vote to give a theoretical Republican president in 2017 immense power to shape trade deals without congressional meddling. That has no application to the TPP debate.
And 2016 will no doubt have the same effect on the Republican side, as incumbents face challenges from opponents to their right who may decide to blast them for supporting Obama's trade agenda. The presidential race provides more pressure, and we're already seeing it: Only weeks ago, Ted Cruz voted to move fast track. Tuesday, he released an op-ed on Breitbart.com bashing "Obamatrade" and voted against cloture.
So while progressives lost the fast-track battle, the trade debate isn't quite over yet. "What [the vote] doesn't mean is that Congress must pass [the TPP]," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. "When the inexcusable and anti-democratic veil of secrecy surrounding the TPP is finally lifted, and the American people see what is actually in the agreement, they are going to force their representatives in Washington to vote that deal down."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular