Take this truth:
The Administration says I’m wrong – that there’s nothing to worry about. They say the deal is nearly done, and they are making a lot of promises about how the deal will affect workers, the environment, and human rights. Promises – but people like you can’t see the actual deal.
For more than two years now, giant corporations have had an enormous amount of access to see the parts of the deal that might affect them and to give their views as negotiations progressed. But the doors stayed locked for the regular people whose jobs are on the line.
If most of the trade deal is good for the American economy, but there’s a provision hidden in the fine print that could help multinational corporations ship American jobs overseas or allow for watering down of environmental or labor rules, fast track would mean that Congress couldn’t write an amendment to fix it. It’s all or nothing.
Before we sign on to rush through a deal like that – no amendments, no delays, no ability to block a bad bill – the American people should get to see what’s in it.
Essentially, in nice language, she's saying the president is hiding the truth:
When giant corporations get to see the details and the American people don’t, we all lose. Let’s level the playing field: No vote on fast-tracking trade until the public can read the TPP deal.
We’ve all seen the tricks and traps that corporations hide in the fine print of contracts. We’ve all seen the provisions they slip into legislation to rig the game in their favor. Now just imagine what they have done working behind closed doors with TPP.
We can’t keep the American people in the dark.[emphasis added]
It's frankly nothing new that the president is not telling the truth on the topic--he's already gotten Four Pinocchios on claims about jobs
Here are the White House' 10 biggest lies on TPP.
Keep it up, Senator Warren.
Also, this afternoon, Bernie Sanders took to the Senate floor to attack the TPP, starting with criticism of the coverage of the TPP deal by the traditional media.
"We hear the same rhetoric...and yet every single time the rhtoeric around thes e past trade agreements has been proven to be dead wrong."
Also, Sanders wrote a letter today to US Trade Representative Michael Froman asking some pointed questions:
Before we even consider relinquishing Congress’s Constitutional authority “to regulate commerce with foreign nations” to the executive branch, I would like you to respond to the following questions.
1) The minimum wage in Vietnam is roughly 56 cents an hour. It has been reported that Malaysia uses modern-day slave labor in its electronics industry. If the TPP goes into effect, do you have an estimate as to how many jobs in this country will be lost as American corporations move to Vietnam and Malaysia where they can pay workers less than $1 an hour?
2) Right now, the TPP includes what is called an Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which would allow foreign investors the right to use international tribunals as a forum for seeking compensation for laws and regulations that impact their ability to profit from investments. For example, under an ISDS provision of an agreement, a French firm is suing Egypt under an international tribunal for raising its minimum wage. Uruguay and Australia are both being sued for imposing requirements on how tobacco products are packaged. Eli Lilly is suing Canada for $500 million for "violating its obligations to foreign investors under the North American Free Trade Agreement by allowing its courts to invalidate patents for two of its drugs." Transcanada is considering suing the U.S. under an international tribunal for refusing to approve the Keystone Pipeline. Quebec is being sued under an international tribunal for banning fracking. After the TPP goes into effect, could a Federal, state, or local government be forced to pay compensation to a foreign company if an international tribunal rules that this company was prevented from earning an expected future profit due to environmental, labor, or consumer laws or regulations?
3) I have been told that the TPP would force the U.S. government to waive "Buy American" procurement rules for countries that are in the TPP. It is my understanding that under the TPP the U.S. government could not choose to buy American products over Vietnamese or Malaysian products that are made without meeting prevailing wage requirements. Is this true, and if so, how many Americans will lose their jobs as a result?
4) It has been reported that 100% of Vietnamese seafood imports contained antibiotics that are not approved in the U.S. As you know, seafood imports are a common source of pathogens. Have any studies been done to determine what kind of health hazards the American people will be exposed to by the importation of these products if the TPP is implemented?
5) Today, many millions of people living in the Asia-Pacific region benefit from access to life-saving medications at affordable prices. Unfortunately, what is known about the current TPP draft text suggests that the agreement would threaten this access because the pharmaceutical companies could delay the time in which generic drugs could be put on the market. Doctors without Borders has said that "the TPP has the potential to become the most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines." How many people will lose access to life-saving drugs for cancer and HIV if the TPP goes into effect?
4:16 PM PT: Catching the mark-up right now of fast track in Senate Finance Committee: when Ron Wyden moves his lips, are they moving to suck up to corporate lobbyists, Republicans or what? Can someone in Oregon please primary this tool?
Comments are closed on this story.