Thread: The TPP's Attack On 'Buy America' Gov't Purchases

Announced 4/1/16-----the take action link will take you to a zip code entry then to your reps email. Actually congress already agreed to no amendments only yes or no vote but maybe this is newly added and can still be protested..... O is always thinking of ways to harm Americans.



Last Friday, the White House officially notified Congress that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would require waiving U.S. “Buy America” government purchasing preferences for goods and services from Vietnam, Malaysia, Japan and other Pacific Rim nations. This was no April Fool’s joke. If the TPP were enacted, the federal government would no longer be able to preference using taxpayer dollars to create jobs for American workers.

The TPP’s procurement chapter would require the federal government to treat foreign bidders for many government contracts as if there were from the United States, undermining one of the most important job-creation tools available. The United States — as well as governments abroad — should be able to use stimulus funds to create jobs within their borders, and not be required to send taxpayer funds overseas.

Last week’s notice officially acknowledges what we’ve known since the secretive TPP text was published in November: The TPP gives bidders from Vietnam, Malaysia, Japan and other TPP countries expansive access to U.S. goods, services and construction contracts, necessitating waivers from existing U.S. law. Among the at least 93 specific procuring entities listed in the TPP are the U.S. Department of Transportation (in part), Department of Defense (in part), Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of State, Department of Agriculture (in part), Department of Homeland Security (in part), General Services Administration, The Smithsonian, Federal Prison Industries, Inc., Federal Reserve System, Federal Communications Commissions and the Tennessee Valley Authority (in part).

While the TPP does not cover state and local procurement contracts at this time, the TPP does require countries to “commence negotiations with a view to achieving expanded coverage, including sub-central coverage” within three years. This requirement could undermine popular “Buy Local” preference programs at the state and local level in the future.

Citizens Trade Campaign’s view on this matter is pretty simple: Trade agreements should not dictate how governments can and cannot spend taxpayer money.

TAKE ACTION: Please urge your Congress members to oppose the TPP for undermining “Buy America” now.

Many thanks,

Arthur Stamoulis, Executive Director
CITIZENS TRADE CAMPAIGN

http://org.salsalabs.com/o/1034/p/di...tion_KEY=19512

Online: citizenstrade.org

What is Hillary's position on this? We all know she is the perfect liar, and will definitely use this as a wedge issue, since most of the GOP Senate supported it.

Politifact checker says she lied/flip flopped again....

"I waited until (the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement) had actually been negotiated" before deciding whether to endorse it.
— Hillary Clinton on Thursday, February 4th, 2016 in comments during the New Hampshire Democratic debate[

also see..Why Clinton's Flip Flop on Trade So Unbelievable http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-clint...o-unbelievable


Hillary Clinton says she didn't endorse the TPP trade deal until it was actually negotiated

By C. Eugene Emery Jr. on Friday, February 5th, 2016 at 12:17 a.m.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal became an issue during her Feb. 4 debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders at the University of New Hampshire. She says she now opposes it.

MSNBC debate moderator Chuck Todd pointed out that Clinton supported the deal while secretary of state, then asked her whether she might support such agreements again if she were elected.

Clinton said she had voted against a previous trade deal as a U.S. senator and, regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership, "I said that I was holding out the hope that (TPP) would be the kind of trade agreement that I was looking for.

"I waited until it had actually been negotiated because I did want to give the benefit of the doubt to the (Obama) administration," she said. "Once I saw what the outcome was, I opposed it."

Did Clinton really withhold her support until the terms of the proposal had been finalized?

PolitiFact has looked at the issue before. We found Clinton made plenty of strongly supportive comments about the deal while negotiations were still ongoing.

Speaking in Australia in 2012, Clinton hailed the deal as "setting the gold standard."

"This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field," Clinton said. "And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."

Strong words for a deal that hadn't been completed yet. But it wasn’t just on that one occasion that Clinton was more than just hopeful about the deal’s impact.

She declared in November 2012 remarks in Singapore that it would "lower barriers, raise standards, and drive long-term growth across the region.

"It will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and establish strong protections for workers and the environment. Better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions, including for women, migrant workers and others too often in the past excluded from the formal economy will help build Asia's middle class and rebalance the global economy."

As PolitiFact reported in October, she also used words such as "exciting," "innovative," "ambitious," "groundbreaking," "cutting-edge," "high-quality" and "high-standard" in describing the partnership before she left the State Department in 2013.

The partners finalized the deal in 2015.

Why the change of heart? In Thursday’s debate, Clinton said she opposes the trade deal because, "We have failed to provide the basic safety net support that American workers need in order to be able to compete and win in the global economy."

Our ruling.........

Clinton said, "I waited until (the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement) had actually been negotiated" before deciding whether to endorse it.

As secretary of state and a member of the Obama administration, it was Clinton's job to promote the deal, even if it wasn't finalized.

Nonetheless, her comments at the time were so positive and so definitive, it becomes disingenuous to argue, as she's doing now, that she didn't endorse the deal before it was finalized.

We rate her statement Half True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...t-history-tpp/