CONYERSL Billionaires Posing As Populists Won't Support Trade Deals For Working People

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Last week, President Trump’s administration notified Congress of his intent to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Act, better known as NAFTA.  As someone who fought against NAFTA’s passage and who has watched unfair competition with low-wage nations tear apart his district—count me among the unimpressed. This is likely to be just another trade deal written by billionaires for the benefit of billionaires.

Donald Trump narrowly won my home state in 2016 on a simple promise: he was going to undo, or scrap the unfair trade deals that were hurting Michigan workers.  He promised this despite his past support for free trade, but regardless of his history, people believed he honestly opposed trade deals like NAFTA and the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Regardless of Trump’s sincerity, he appeared to give voice to the angst that Michigan workers rightfully feel about the impact of NAFTA over the past 20 years. Our workers are tired of competing against Mexican workers who make pennies on the dollar. Michiganders hate that our auto trade deficit—in our largest manufacturing industry—has tripled since NAFTA was passed to over $130 billion as of 2013.

And while NAFTA isn’t the only globalized trade force driving down American wages, Michiganders feel like it was the slippery slope that led so many manufacturers to pack up and leave.  Workers in Michigan feared that Hillary Clinton would not be in their corner on trade. That was costly for her, ultimately proving fatal in the narrow loss she suffered in Michigan.

Decades of losses under NAFTA aren’t easy to fix. Our economy has become so intertwined with Mexico’s that we cannot simply end NAFTA—we have to reform it.  That requires work and that requires a new approach.  To succeed, we need real outsiders who represent working people to write our trade deals—not billionaires like Betsy DeVos and Wilbur Ross and Steven Mnuchin, who will always put Wall Street before Detroit.

Right now, President Trump is relying on donors, family and staff to tell him what a good deal looks like.  With the exception of his Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, who has a reputation as an independent on these matters, Trump’s people are the same ones who have fought for NAFTA and its successors to make it easier to offshore jobs, break up unions, and force workers to compete against people being paid a few dollars a day.

The reason I oppose these billionaire former CEOs writing our trade laws is simple: bargaining power.  If their workers in the United States want higher wages, a CEO can bargain them down by threatening to offshore their jobs.  If environmental agencies or activists want them to stop damaging the environment, the corporate executives call them job killers and threaten to move to a country with fewer regulations and a weaker civil society.

If we want to have fair trade, then we need to be able to enforce the restrictions that make trade fair. But that’s easier said than done.  Enforcing rules and regulations is hard at home and it only gets harder oversees. If Trump gets his way, and guts the American agencies who oversee foreign countries compliance with existing trade rules—it’s going to be nearly impossible.

So far, Trump’s done very little to encourage those who want a fair renegotiation of NAFTA.  After a campaign where he talked tough, he has done little as president to back it up.  He called China a currency manipulator repeatedly during the campaign, but now he says they are not—all while his son-in-law’s family business pitches deals to Chinese investors on their access to President Trump.

At this point in his struggling presidency, Donald Trump needs to do something to fulfill his populist promises and that isn’t unconstitutional, unwise and against American’s interests. Renegotiating NAFTA to protect American workers’ jobs—and workers abroad from exploitation—could be that act.  In order to do so, he needs to have labor unions, consumer advocates, and environmental and safety regulators leading—not advising, but leading—that effort. 

We need people who care deeply about the full implications of trade to be heard with this deal. What we don’t need is another trade deal written by big business for big business.  Unfortunately, looking at Trump’s Cabinet and the people who we know have access to him, another big business trade deal seems like exactly what he’s going to push. We must remain vigilant and prepared to hold his feet to the fire to ensure good jobs for Michigan families. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Conyers: No More NAFTA-Style Trade Deals

Veteran Michigan Congressman Stands with American Workers to Oppose Trade Promotion Authority

WASHINGTON—Today, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) released the following statement after voting against Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation to “fast-track” consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP):

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“Today’s House vote will help stop the rush toward another massive job-destroying trade deal.  This development is a win for workers, the environment, and human rights.

“In the two decades since Congress passed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the United States has lost nearly five million manufacturing jobs nationwide and my home state of Michigan has lost one-out-of-three manufacturing jobs.

“I voted against NAFTA then, and I am steadfast in my opposition to the latest corporate trade deal, the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) and its procedural precursor of Trade Promotion Authority, today. 

“The TPP has rightfully been called ‘NAFTA on steroids.’  The deal would force Americans to compete against workers from developing nations like Vietnam, where the minimum wage is less than 60 cents per hour.  Much like NAFTA, the TPP has more to do with big-business protectionism than with genuine free trade.

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership means risking wages, health, and environmental standards in exchange for the promise of some potential gain for global investors.  This is a terrible deal for the vast majority of Americans. 

“Throughout my career in Congress, I have been a steadfast supporter of Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for workers displaced by trade agreements, and I remain a champion for this funding.  The TAA bill put forward as part of the ‘Fast Track’ legislative package today is not only underfunded and poorly designed, but also inextricably linked to a legislative measure that will eliminate American jobs.  Which is why the House overwhelmingly opposed it.  

“If we are to succeed in restoring our manufacturing base, rebuilding our great industrial cities, defeating climate change, and protecting our citizens’ health, Washington policymakers need to prioritize real human thriving over the profits of global investors.  We can start by defeating these flawed trade deals.” 

Permalink: http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5093CDFE-D0F9-4FAE-A1CD-5DA9F81011C5

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

The US-Korea Free Trade Agreement: A No Win Situation for America and its Workers

John Conyers, Jr.

Why would Congress pass three leftover Bush NAFTA-style "free trade" agreements with Korea, Panama and Colombia?

A report issued by the Economic Policy Institute concluded that the Korea FTA agreement not only fails to create jobs for American workers, it would result in the net loss of 159,000 U.S. jobs in its first seven years. And when one considers the details of the agreement, it is not hard to see why.

Under the proposed Korea FTA, the United States will eliminate tariffs on South Korean cars and trucks, increasing South Korean imports here, without requiring them to buy more of our vehicles. As a concession, South Korea did agree to waive certain environmental and safety requirements for up to 25,000 cars per U.S. maker -- if suddenly there is demand for U.S. cars in South Korea, whose consumers historically have not bought U.S. imports. More than 95 percent of the cars sold in South Korea today are made in South Korea.

Additionally, no changes were made to the low domestic content rules. Under the proposed agreement, up to 65 percent of the value of a vehicle can be sourced in low-wage nations like China and still qualify for the FTA's duty-free access. As a result, this agreement is an open invitation to the auto industry to send American auto parts jobs to China. Indeed, the Korean Auto Workers Union opposes this FTA because the low domestic content rules will also invite the South Korean parts industry to outsource their jobs to China. Meanwhile, Europe's trade agreement with South Korea requires 55 percent domestic content. Even NAFTA required 50 percent domestic content.

But while this FTA does not follow NAFTA's domestic content requirements, it does replicate NAFTA's special privileges for foreign investors. This allows foreign investors to evade domestic courts and use foreign tribunals to get reimbursed for regulatory costs from U.S. taxpayers. There are more than 270 Korean corporate affiliates in the U.S. who would be empowered to use these tribunals to raid our Treasury if the Korea FTA were implemented.

Among the laws exposed to attack are financial regulations that the U.S. and Korea implemented to restore stability after the devastating global financial crisis. The banks and securities firms that wrecked the global economy would be newly empowered under this deal to attack the policies designed to get them under control. Not surprisingly, the Korea FTA is loved by Wall Street's titans.

And the FTA even includes President Bush's ban on references to the International Labor Organization's Conventions -- the global labor standard. The agreement does nothing to require South Korean labor law to be put on equal footing with U.S. law, as under South Korean law, union members can be fired for striking and then sued for their employers' lost profits. The AFL-CIO, Teamsters, and many other American and Korean unions oppose this FTA.

With the Big Three beginning to recover and hire more workers thanks to major U.S. government assistance, it seems problematic that Congress would support an agreement that could boost the auto industry's profits, but only at the cost of more off-shored jobs.

The proposed Korea FTA is a bad deal for our country and America's workers. It's time to put the American worker first and stop these trade deals.

The Charts below compare USITC’s estimates of the impact of the forthcoming free trade agreement with Korea to EPI’s own calculation. Unlike USITC’s forecast of a small positive impact, EPI’s research shows it will increase the U.S. trade deficit with Korea by about $16.7 billion, and displace about 159,000 American jobs within the first seven years after it takes effect.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©