Today's the day.
If you haven't contacted your representative in Congress urging her or him to oppose fast-track trade legislation, you've only got a few hours before the House votes on the matter. The stakes are high. Some 151 Democrats have publicly declared opposition to fast-tracking, known officially as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). Nineteen have publicly stated they will vote for it. That leaves just 18 publicly undecided.
The number of Republicans opposed is fuzzy, and many observers across the political spectrum say the vote will be close. But House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan, who has worked to move Republican undecideds and foes of TPA into the "yes" column, has publicly exuded confidence that the legislation will pass.
Fast-tracking would expedite the president's negotiations of trade agreements for the next six years. Two major ones, including the Trans-Paciific Partnership (TPP) of 12 Pacific Rim nations in Asia and the Americas, are being negotiated now.
Should TPA pass the House today, it means Congress will have a couple of months to look over any trade agreement the president—any president—puts on their desks and then vote it aye or nay without amendments or filibusters.
Our nation's experience with past trade agreements argues for great caution with any in the future. President Obama has said the TPP is brimful of labor-favoring provisions and environmental protections, the most progressive trade agreement ever. Perhaps so. But that is a low bar, as any worker can tell you whose job has been off-shored as a consequence of a previous trade agreement. Thanks to those servants of the people at Wikileaks, what's been publicly seen of the TPP isn't very encouraging. For instance, the provisions for handling investor lawsuits against nations that impose regulations they deem unfair have the potential for much brutal economic mischief if you're not one of the 1%.
Arrayed against the TPA legislation are advocates for labor, environmental protection, human rights and other matters, all with different reasons for wanting fast-tracking stopped but unified in their purpose of stopping it.
One of them, Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, sent a letter to President Obama Monday. Trumka has in the past often called fast-tracking "undemocratic," and unions are vigorous in their opposition. In the letter, he chided the president for "mischaracteriz[ing]" the labor movement's position on trade. It does not oppose all trade agreements, he wrote. Rather its leaders have for 20 years been trying to reform global agreements. They oppose TPA in great part because of deep concerns specifically about TPP's potential harmful impacts.
You can read part of Trumka's letter and additional commentary on fast-tracking below the orange tangle.
Here are excerpts from Trumka's very strongly worded letter:
As David Rosnick of the Center for Economic and Policy Research has shown,
the projected small, positive impact of the Trans-Pacifc Partnership (TPP) on U.S.
economic growth (0.13% of GDP by 2025) is swamped by a much larger likely negative
distributional impact, leaving most workers worse off. [...]
Our current trade policies need serious and deep reforms not just tweaks around
the edges. While it is crucial that we work to dramatically strengthen labor and
environmental provisions and to enforce them more effectively, that is by no means
sufficient to achieving the needed overhaul of the trade agreement "template." Current
trade rules including those in the TPP were designed to free global businesses from
the limitations of national laws and regulations?the very regulations that you and I fight
for every day: the ones that protect working people and their families from a variety of
workplace and consumer dangers and abuse. [...]
We were optimistic early in your administration that we would be able to support
the TPP. To that end, we have been working with your staff for more than ?ve years to
try to shape the TPP so that it would benefit not only America's workers, but also
workers in every TPP country.4 Our efforts have been largely rebuffed. [...]
You have repeatedly isolated and marginalized labor and unions as the only
opponents of fast track and TPP. I am sure you are aware, however, that the critics of
the current TPP encompass a broad, deep, and intellectually impressive swath of public
opinion. Many of the academics, members of Congress, and organizations that oppose
fast track and criticize TPP have been supporters of "free trade? and trade agreements
in the past. [...]
Mr. President, I urge you to make the text of the TPP public, so that we can
engage in a more constructive national public debate about its content. I also ask that
you not equate criticism of a particular set of trade rules with opposition to all trade.
Right on the money, Mr. Trumka.
This is likely your last chance to join us in calling or emailing representatives urging them to oppose fast-track legislation.