Highlights:
-
“I oppose the TPP agreement — and that means before and after the election.”
-
On the Oregon questionnaire, in response to questions about provisions in the TPP addressing human rights and labor conditions, Clinton said: “I’m not interested in tinkering around the margins of our trade policy. I think we need a fundamental rethink of how we approach trade deals going forward.”
.
Hillary has stated categorically that she is opposed to the TPP agreement, BEFORE and AFTER the election, where she may be President of the United States.
She opposes a vote in the so-called lame-duck session during which Obama is still President but his successor has already been selected, and she also re-iterated her opposition to TPP if the issue hasn’t been decided yet (a good possibility, given how the GOP has always tried to delay and stall legislation Obama favors, even if they themselves are for it in principle) and she were to be President at the time of a vote.
From the Washington Post article:
Hillary Clinton has signaled that if she is elected president in November she would oppose a vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord during a lame-duck session of Congress, sharpening her differences with President Obama as he is ramping up his sales pitch on behalf of the deal.
On Trade Hillary has a record of voting against these types of huge multi-national trade agreements. During her Senate career she had voted against both CAFTA and AFTA, spoke strongly against KFTA (which was eventually voted on after she left the Senate). CAFTA and AFTA were the only two big multi-national trade agreements Hillary had a chance to vote on, citing concerns about lack of protection for workers and lack of environmental protections as her reason for her strong and emphatic NO vote on both of these agreements, the same kind of protections largely left out of TPP as well.
Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, responded in writing to a question on the lame-duck session from a coalition of Oregon labor unions and environmental groups by stating: “I oppose the TPP agreement — and that means before and after the election.”
“I oppose the TPP agreement — and that means before and after the election.”
It really can’t be much clearer. Hillary is strongly opposed to TPP. She is breaking with Obama on this issue. And that won’t change if she is voted in as President.
Opponents of the pact said Clinton’s response on the questionnaire, coming ahead of Oregon’s Democratic primary on May 17, represents a more definitive statement of opposition to the 12-nation Pacific Rim accord than she has given before. It could present new hurdles for the Obama administration, which is viewing a likely brief session of Congress after the Nov. 8 election as its last chance to get the deal ratified by lawmakers before the president leaves office in January.
No to a vote during the lame-duck session. No to TPP after the election is over. Remember now, people, this is her stating so NOW, with the Democratic nomination decided.
For Obama, the economic anxiety among 2016 primary voters has made passage of the TPP, one of his top economic priorities, look increasingly doubtful.
….
(Obama press secretary) Earnest delivered a warning to pro-trade advocates in Congress that they may be running out of time. He said the prevalent anti-trade views among the major candidates to replace Obama should be “rather compelling to supporters of TPP wondering whether or not Congress should act this year.”
There may be a strong effort to squeeze in a TPP vote during the lame duck phase of Congress, before the new President is sworn in, because with Hillary as President (the most likely outcome of the election at this point) it is going to be an impossibility, given Hillary’s strong aversion to the TPP agreement, and it is even uncertain of passage were Donald Trump to win the presidency.
On the Oregon questionnaire, in response to questions about provisions in the TPP addressing human rights and labor conditions, Clinton said: “I’m not interested in tinkering around the margins of our trade policy. I think we need a fundamental rethink of how we approach trade deals going forward.”
Here is part of Hillary’s floor speech on why she opposed CAFTA, a massive multi-national free trade agreement that encompassed 13 nations and some 200 Million people:
Source: Senate.gov
My vote to oppose DR-CAFTA is one taken with great difficulty. I have heard strong arguments both for and against from many New Yorkers who have a stake in the agreement and I have weighed them seriously. Segments of the New York economy would benefit from this agreement, but at the end of the day, I cannot support an agreement that fails to include adequate labor standards and is a step backward in the development of bipartisan support for international trade.
At the outset, it is important to understand that consideration of DR-CAFTA is not occurring in isolation. This agreement must be read within the larger context of the failed economic and trade policies of this administration. Under this administration, the trade deficit has soared. The offshoring of U.S. jobs has continued to increase, and the U.S. economy has experienced a net loss of U.S. jobs. The administration has no plans to address rising health care and pension costs that are imposing such a tremendous burden on American businesses. This administration has also failed to enforce existing trade rules and has not been aggressive in addressing the tax and capital subsidies of our competitors.
Turning to the specifics of the agreement itself, DR-CAFTA fails in significant respects. The most problematic elements are its labor provisions which retreat from advances made in the late 1990s and that culminated in the labor provisions of the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. The U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement included internationally recognized enforceable labor standards in the text of the agreement. Sadly, DR-CAFTA is a step backward. The labor provisions of the DR-CAFTA agreement instead used an ``enforce your own laws'' standard which is not included in any other area of the agreement. An ``enforce your own laws'' standard may work in nations with a strong tradition of labor enforcement, but the International Labor Organization, ILO, has documented that the CAFTA countries' labor laws have not complied with international norms in at least 20 areas.
There are other problems with the DR-CAFTA agreement. The final agreement excludes provisions for assisting U.S. workers harmed by trade. The environmental provisions of CAFTA undermine environmental protection, by including a lack of parity between the enforcement of commercial and environmental provisions. This is a clear step back from the Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Finally, the environmental conservation provisions lack a commitment to fund their implementation.
The agreement also fails in the area of public health. Regarding pharmaceuticals, I would note that in 2001, 142 countries, including the United States, adopted the “Doha Declaration,” an agreement that provided that trade obligations should be interpreted and implemented in ways that protect public health. In August 2002, Congress passed the Trade Promotion Authority Act which applied Doha to U.S. trade negotiations. Despite this commitment, the Administration has promoted provisions within trade agreements – including DR-CAFTA - that will significantly impede the ability of developing countries to obtain access to inexpensive, life-saving medications. Contrary to the principles of Doha, these agreements place the interests of large multinational drug companies over the ability of developing countries to safeguard public health.
Hillary’s opposition to the final version of TPP is consistent with her previous votes and comments on trade agreements when she was a Senator. It is good (for me, also opposed to TPP) to see that she is now sharply doubling down on her opposition to TPP even as she has effectively won the nomination of the Democratic Party and is already turning towards the General Election and her battle with Donald Trump.