Thread: Sunset of the "fast track" powers

I heard this on cspan the other day. The "fast track" which is where congress ceded it's power over international trade agreements to the exec branch (i.e. fast track), is now sunsetted (July1?) Also in the same story, were some musings of the dems where they are thinking of readdressing the bad trade agreements. The quoted "bad" agreement was NAFTA (or CAFTA, I do not remember).

Have others heard, or have any research over this?

H.

I believe I heard the same story and they were referencing NAFTA

The Fast Track TPA .. Trade Promotion Authority was first instituted by the Congress for George Bush the First in order to negotiate NAFTA. It expired during the Clinton Administration but after Clinton was convinced by Bush to proceed with it because Bush had already lobbied it in Congress.

Congress then suspended TPA when it expired during the Clinton Presidency so Clinton never had this authority and as a consequence never initiated any more Free Trade Agreements and he may have known that they were bad for America.

Then in 2002, the US Congress renewed the TPA for Bush the Second and boy oh boy has he gone Hog Wild with his TPA ... CAFTA, MAFTA, PAFTA, SAFTA, VAFTA etc. etc. etc.

Now it expires again and this Congress doesn't want to renew it.

I hope they don't. I pray they don't.

It would be nice, if they blow NAFTA outta the water.

I know that CAFTA and FTAA are simply re-writes and expansion of NAFTA, but if you eliminate the original core problem, it makes these later BAD agreements more likely to be revoked, or to not be agreeded to.

That "simple" story on CSPAN gave me more of a warm fuzzy feeling than just about anything has over the last few years (other than sheeple FINALLY standing up to the damn congress and king jorge recently).

H.

Highlights of NAFTA included:

Tariff elimination for qualifying products. Before NAFTA, tariffs of 30 percent or higher on export goods to Mexico were common, as were long delays caused by paperwork. Additionally, Mexican tariffs on U.S.-made products were, on average, 250 percent higher than U.S. duties on Mexican products. NAFTA addressed this imbalance by phasing out tariffs over 15 years. Approximately 50 percent of the tariffs were abolished immediately when the agreement took affect, and the remaining tariffs were targeted for gradual elimination. Among the areas specifically covered by NAFTA are construction, engineering, accounting, advertising, consulting/management, architecture, health-care management, commercial education, and tourism.
Elimination of nontariff barriers by 2008. This includes opening the border and interior of Mexico to U.S. truckers and streamlining border processing and licensing requirements. Nontariff barriers were the biggest obstacle to conducting business in Mexico that small exporters faced.
Establishment of standards. The three NAFTA countries agreed to toughen health, safety, and industrial standards to the highest existing standards among the three countries (which were always U.S. or Canadian). Also, national standards could no longer be used as a barrier to free trade. The speed of export-product inspections and certifications was also improved.
Supplemental agreements. To ease concerns that Mexico's low wage scale would cause U.S. companies to shift production to that country, and to ensure that Mexico's increasing industrialization would not lead to rampant pollution, special side agreements were included in NAFTA. Under those agreements, the three countries agreed to establish commissions to handle labor and environmental issues. The commissions have the power to impose steep fines against any of the three governments that failed to impose its laws consistently. Environmental and labor groups from both the United States and Canada, however, have repeatedly charged that the regulations and guidelines detailed in these supplemental agreements have not been enforced.
Tariff reduction for motor vehicles and auto parts and automobile rules of origin.
Expanded telecommunications trade.
Reduced textile and apparel barriers.
More free trade in agriculture. Mexican import licenses were immediately abolished, with most additional tariffs phased out over a 10-year period.
Expanded trade in financial services.
Opening of insurance markets.
Increased investment opportunities.
Liberalized regulation of land transportation.
Increased protection of intellectual property rights. NAFTA stipulated that, for the first time, Mexico had to provide a very high level of protection for intellectual property rights. This is especially helpful in fields such as computer software and chemical production. Mexican firms will no longer be able to steal intellectual property from companies and create a "Mexican" version of a product.
Expanded the rights of American firms to make bids on Mexican and Canadian government procurement contracts.
One of the key provisions of NAFTA provided "national goods" status to products imported from other NAFTA countries. No state, provincial, or local governments could impose taxes or tariffs on those goods. In addition, customs duties were either eliminated at the time of the agreement or scheduled to be phased out in five or 10 equal stages. The one exception to the phase out was specified sensitive items, for which the phase-out period would be 15 years.

Supporters championed NAFTA because it opened up Mexican markets to U.S. companies like never before. The Mexican market is growing rapidly, which promises more export opportunities, which in turn means more jobs. Supporters, though, had a difficult time convincing the American public that NAFTA would do more good than harm. Their main effort centered on convincing people that all consumers benefit from the widest possible choice of products at the lowest possible price—which means that consumers would be the biggest beneficiaries of lowered trade barriers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents the interests of small businesses, was one of the most active supporters of NAFTA, organizing the owners and employees of small and mid-size businesses to support the agreement. This support was key in countering the efforts of organized labor to stop the agreement.

Nafta and Small Business

Analysts agree that NAFTA has opened up new opportunities for small and mid-size businesses. Mexican consumers spend more each year on U.S. products than their counterparts in Japan and Europe, so the stakes for business owners are high. (Most of the studies of NAFTA concentrate on the effects of U.S. business with Mexico. Trade with Canada has also been enhanced, but the passage of the trade agreement did not have as great an impact on the already liberal trade practices that America and its northern neighbor abided by.)

Some small businesses were affected directly by NAFTA. In the past, larger firms always had an advantage over small ones because the large companies could afford to build and maintain offices and/or manufacturing plants in Mexico, thereby avoiding many of the old trade restrictions on exports. In addition, pre-NAFTA laws stipulated that U.S. service providers that wanted to do business in Mexico had to establish a physical presence there, which was simply too expensive for small firms to do. Small firms were stuck—they could not afford to build, nor could they afford the export tariffs. NAFTA leveled the playing field by letting small firms export to Mexico at the same cost as the large firms and by eliminating the requirement that a business establish a physical presence in Mexico in order to do business there. The lifting of these restrictions meant that vast new markets were suddenly open to small businesses that had previously done business only in the United States. This was regarded as especially important for small businesses that produced goods or services that had matured in U.S. markets.

Still, small firms interested in conducting business in Mexico have to recognize that Mexican business regulations, hiring practices, employee benefit requirements, taxation schedules, and accounting principles all include features that are unique to that country. Small businesses, then, should familiarize themselves with Mexico's foundation of business rules and traditions—not to mention the demographics culture of the marketplace—before committing resources to this region.

Opposition to Nafta

Much organized opposition to NAFTA centered on the fear that the abolishment of trade barriers would spur U.S. firms to pack up and move to Mexico to take advantage of cheap labor. This concern remains strong among labor unions and other worker organizations. Opposition to NAFTA was also strong among environmental groups, who contended that the treaty's anti-pollution elements were woefully inadequate. This criticism has not abated since NAFTA's implementation. Indeed, both Mexico and Canada have been repeatedly cited for environmental malfeasance.

Controversy over the treaty's environmental enforcement provisions remained strong in the late 1990s. In fact, North American business interests have sought to weaken a key NAFTA side accord on environmental protections and enforcement. This accord—one of the few provisions welcomed by environmental groups—allows groups and ordinary citizens to accuse member nations of failing to enforce their own environmental laws. A trinational Commission for Environmental Cooperation is charged with investigating these allegations and issuing public reports. "That process is slow, but the embarassment factor has proven surprisingly high," noted Business Week. As of mid-2000, the U.S. government has expressed opposition to revisions in the NAFTA agreement. But the Canadian government and many businesses in all three countries continue to work to change this accord.

The Effects of Nafta

Since NAFTA's passage, American business interests have expressed general satisfaction with the agreement. Employment, productivity, and trade have all surged in the 1990s, although analysts point out that these increases can be attributed to myriad factors, of which NAFTA is only one. Moreover, job losses in the U.S. that can be attributed to NAFTA have been minimal. As of 1997, only 117,000 Americans had signed up for the benefits offered to workers displaced by NAFTA.

Change has been most dramatic in Mexico. U.S. firms are setting up joint ventures in Mexico that, for the first time, use local firms for materials and parts. The quality of goods produced in Mexico has gone up, and the biggest beneficiaries are Mexican consumers. Wages and working conditions have also improved in many areas.

http://www.answers.com/topic/north-amer ... at=biz-fin



THEN WAY ARE THEY COMING TO u.s.?

God Bless the Teamsters! They have been with us on the Mexican Trucks fiasco and NAFTA and GATT. It would be a Godsend if we could start cutting away at these trade agreements that have done nothing -- except sell out hard working Americans.

HUSKER ... thought you'd like the statement from the Teamsters. I sure did! (You were correct on the date, BTW. We were set free on July 1.)

Teamsters Union Says Good Riddance to Fast Track Trade Authority

Washington - The following statement was released today by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters:

This weekend, President Bush's "Fast Track" trade negotiating authority expires for good. It has been a long and difficult five years for workers everywhere. With the expiration of Fast Track, perhaps this finally means that we can move in an entirely new direction on our trade and globalization policies.

Since Fast Track, trade negotiations have been accelerated to an alarming speed, denying legislators and the public the appropriate time to consider the serious ramifications of these agreements. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has used Fast Track to push too many job-killing, NAFTA-style trade agreements.

Such agreements have included the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), Chile, Singapore, Morocco, Australia, Bahrain and Oman. Just a few weeks ago, the State Department announced that Bahrain and Oman have been added to its list of worst offenders in failing to suppress human trafficking and forced labor -- which is "a modern day form of slavery." The fact that under Fast Track we passed free trade agreements with these countries is further evidence that these FTAs are nothing more than a one-way street to the bottom for workers everywhere.

Such misguided trade policies have exacerbated stagnant wages and growing job insecurity in the United States. We have lost more than 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2001, many to offshore outsourcing, while an increasing number of white-collar service-sector jobs are also at risk. At the same time, our trade deficit has ballooned to nearly $800 billion. For the USTR to call for more Fast Trade deals is ridiculous.

Unfortunately, the damage that Fast Track has done is not entirely over. Still lingering is the Peru, Panama, Colombia, and the South Korea free trade agreements. This Saturday, as the Fast Track clock expires, the terribly negotiated South Korea FTA will be signed.

The Teamsters Union strongly opposes ALL of these job-killing trade deals. Until the U.S. trade model and policies begin to focus on job creation here at home, we will continue to oppose such deals.

I also would like to add that it is offensive and insulting to trade unionists that the Bush administration and Congress would even consider an FTA with Colombia. We should not be entering into a new free trade agreement with a government that allows workers who fight for their right to organize and for better wages to be killed with impunity.

Rather than staggering blindly into extending Fast Track, our nation needs to regain our economic footing. We must have a real discussion about the real costs and impacts our trade policies have had for working men and women here at home and abroad. We need to pass China currency legislation such as Ryan- Hunter and Stabenow-Bunning. We need to stop the skyrocketing trade deficit that we are facing. We need to promote and encourage more Buy-America procurement policies. We need to pass anti-offshoring legislation. The list goes on. Absent real action and an honest assessment of our trade agreements and policies, we will undoubtedly find ourselves in an even worse predicament 10 years from now.

And so on June 30th, the Teamsters Union celebrates the end to this terrible process, and we look forward to working with members of Congress on a new economic trade model that creates jobs at home and lifts up workers everywhere.

As I said in other posts, even though many unions have fallen into the open borders lobby--in order to increase the membership rolls--they have also been one of the loudest critics of NAFTA. In fact, until immigration became a burning issue seized upon by up and coming union organizers, NAFTA was the main target of outrage, at least that is what I have observed.

My question then: Can AFLCIO (and other unions) anger at NAFTA be carried over to anger and protest against the SPP and NAU proposals? Obviously the Teamsters are already jumping on the bandwagon. But the Teamsters have also been part of the "Change to Win" coalition which has gone after immigrants in a big way, even encouraging their organizers to learn Spanish.

So this makes the dilemna for unions much clearer: Take the easy route and sign up whomever they can get, even if it's illegals. That route swells the membership roles --or-- Protect members' jobs from unfair foreign competition, whether it is outsourced or insourced by ilegal immigration. That route protects members and our country.

Originally Posted by Captainron

My question then: Can AFLCIO (and other unions) anger at NAFTA be carried over to anger and protest against the SPP and NAU proposals? Obviously the Teamsters are already jumping on the bandwagon. But the Teamsters have also been part of the "Change to Win" coalition which has gone after immigrants in a big way, even encouraging their organizers to learn Spanish.

So this makes the dilemna for unions much clearer: Take the easy route and sign up whomever they can get, even if it's illegals. That route swells the membership roles --or-- Protect members' jobs from unfair foreign competition, whether it is outsourced or insourced by ilegal immigration. That route protects members and our country.

Well, as some of you recall most of those "Reagan Democrats" came from unions back in 1980. Will we get support on the immigration issue? Frankly, I don't know. Having said that, having their support on these trade issues is great news. And that I could use some of right now!

One thing is for sure. The same thing that enrages us about iillegal mmigration, it's effects on the educaton of our children, driving down wages, closing emergency rooms, ad infinitum .... affects union members too. Let's see if the rank and file put up with Open Borders union officials much longer. Miracles can happen. Look at that Senate vote last week!