When word came that three Free Trade Agreements (with Colombia, Panama and South Korea) had the green light from the Senate Finance Committee, millions of people were up in arms, left with the stench of NAFTA lingering like a rotten wheel of Brie. The compromise that appeared to seal the deal was President Obama's insistence on renewal of Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) funding aimed at training people who lost their jobs as a result of FTAs. Never mind the admission that people would lose jobs as a result of the deals -- that's a foregone conclusion -- this was an actual compromise being made by Senators whose views rarely align.
Alas, it was too bad to be true. The Republicans couldn't stomach the training of workers who they seek to unemploy:
The fates of three pending Free Trade Agreements (FTA) appeared to swing wildly last week, with an announcement of a deal to move them forward, a mock-mark up scheduled and then cancellation of the meeting because of stark political division, all in fewer than three days.
On Tuesday, word came that a deal had been reached to move the agreements with trade adjustment assistance (TAA), which provides support to U.S. workers who suffer economically because of trade pacts. The Obama Administration and key Democrats have insisted that TAA be attached to the FTAs for them to move forward in the approval process.
Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus (D-Mont.) quickly announced his panel would hold a mock mark-up to consider the measures - between the U.S. and Colombia, Panama and South Korea - on Thursday.
By Wednesday, however, cracks had started to show in the plan, with Republicans expressing concerns about adding TAA provisions to the implementing language for the U.S.-Korea agreement, as well as about the meeting's timing.
By Thursday, hours before the mock mark-up was scheduled, Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) had spoken out in opposition and led a letter signed by Committee Republicans to President Barack Obama, calling for the measures and TAA to be considered separately.
At 3 p.m., Baucus announced from the Committee's hearing room that the meeting would be cancelled due to lack of quorum because no Republican would be present, while Republicans held a press conference at another location.
The extra time has stoked the fire of those who oppose the deals. Arguments earlier this year centered on safety, with labor leaders concerned that Colombia, home of the most murders of trade unionists in the world, would not comply with heightened safety standards that the President and others demanded. That argument is now marching in lock step with questions about the economic benefits of the deals:
Seventeen years after the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement by the United States, Canada and Mexico, the contentious issue of free trade is back on Capitol Hill. The White House and some lawmakers are pushing to complete deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia in the works since George W. Bush's presidency.
Free trade lowers overseas barriers to U.S. products. But it also makes it easier for foreign competitors to do business here. It's a complex issue, and many Americans believe such deals are responsible for shipping jobs overseas. The cost benefit analysis is greatly contested between businesses and labor groups.
The pro-business U.S. Chamber of Commerce is pushing hard for Congress to move forward on the agreements, especially since the European Union's agreement with South Korea went into effect Friday. The Economic Policy Institute, a labor-backed group, insists these deals hurt the American worker.
Different studies show different outcomes. The American Farm Bureau offers statistics showing the three agreements together are expected to increase direct exports from Pennsylvania by $54.9 million annually. The International Trade Administration says exports of manufactured goods support about 258,000 jobs in Pennsylvania.
But the Economic Policy Institute, in a state-by-state analysis, warned that NAFTA resulted in 35,000 lost jobs in Pennsylvania, with 27,000 of them in manufacturing.
The extra time on the free trade clock has also allowed the agriculture sector to weigh in more heavily. This, from the American Jobs Alliance and the California Farmers Union:
Pending free trade agreements with Korea, Colombia and Panama are bad for California farmers and must be rejected if we are to preserve our way of life.
All three trade treaties are based on North American Free Trade Agreement-style policies that have displaced American farmers while sending jobs that support California's rural communities offshore. In fact our leading export is jobs and we reward companies that outsource jobs. Since NAFTA took effect, the United States has lost 300,000 farms and millions of jobs.
Major commodity groups and agribusiness organizations are making dubious claims that there will be massive export gains for farm products as a result of these free trade agreements (FTAs). Supporters of the FTAs only look at gross exports while never including expanded imports. Net trade is what matters. The fuzzy math also arbitrarily assumes an automatic 10 percent increase (a figure pulled out of thin air) for U.S. market share in Korea for every American agricultural sector, despite a finding from the U.S. International Trade Commission that says corn, soybeans and wheat would be net losers, and rice is not even covered in the Korea FTA. The USITC projects many American agricultural sectors would face a worsening trade balance were the FTA to be implemented. This is a very serious manipulation.
The agriculture sector is interesting because it is divided. "The wheat industry and most mainstream agriculture organizations," Dairy Herd Network writes, "are strongly supportive of the three pending agreements." This does not include the beef industry, however, according to the California Farmers:
California cattle and beef producers will also be harmed by these FTAs. The U.S. has NAFTA-style trade deals with 17 other nations, and our cumulative trade deficit in cattle and beef is twice as high with these 17 countries as it is with the rest of the world. Over the past 30 years, more than half a million beef ranchers have left the industry as large meatpackers have reaped the benefits of these flawed trade agreements.
Under the proposed deal, Korea could import cattle from China (the world's third-largest cattle herd) and get preferred treatment to ship that beef to the U.S. Adding insult to injury, South Korea bans imports of our beef from cattle over 30 months old due to fears of mad-cow disease. Colombia, a major beef producer, would also be able to trans-ship from Brazil, a gargantuan beef producer whose imports would harm our cattle industry.
The American Jobs Alliance began running ads against the "job-killing" deals this week.
Thankfully, the FTA delay has afforded Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) the opportunity to focus on the most important aspects of the import/export business: abortion. From Huffington Post:
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) attached an amendment to the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement on Thursday that would ban any organizations that provide abortions, including hospitals, from receiving Medicaid family planning funds -- even if those abortions are to save a woman's life.
The Senate Finance Committee will consider the amendment Thursday afternoon as they begin action on the South Korea pact, despite the fact that there is no connection between the two issues.
"Clearly abortion has absolutely nothing to do with U.S-South Korea trade," Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, told HuffPost. "It's completely insane -- he's looking to bring down trade bills for abortion politics, and frankly for his own politics."
Hatch, the Finance Committee's ranking member, has recently taken heat from the Tea Party for being too liberal on fiscal issues and immigration reform. He may be trying to display his anti-abortion credentials ahead of the 2012 election cycle; June poll numbers show that 59 percent of Utah voters say they'd vote against him.
Hatch also submitted several other amendments having to do with Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act that are unrelated to U.S.-South Korea trade. His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Problem solved.