Home | About | Donate

Fast Track Tensions Escalate in Senate Ahead of Crucial Vote


#1

Fast Track Tensions Escalate in Senate Ahead of Crucial Vote

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

Amid convoluted political machinations and ever-mounting progressive opposition, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote Tuesday on a motion to move forward with Fast Track authority, which would for six years help ram corporate-friendly trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) through Congress.


#3

Seeing how TPP and TTIP are less about trade and more about transferring judicial authority from governments to corporations, Oregon representative Bluemanure is not just "wrong on trade", he is wrong on justice.


#4

Organized labor ( the still un-sold unions) need to join with progressive groups opposed to this and lay it on the line -- a vote for fast track and we shut the country down with a national strike. I doubt anything less will be heard by the arrogant oligarchy.


#5

"Of course, such political horse-trading does little to address the fundamental problems with Fast Track or the dangerous trade deals the authority is designed to promote, which progressive groups were quick to underscore on Tuesday." I think this says alot . The need for single item bills is gargantuan, these many layered , so big as to not be able to be read bills seem counter productive to me .


#7

Quite a few years ago, we tried to get two bills introduced to the house.
* One was a "Read the Bills Act" requiring all legislators to read and understand the many bills they were asked to vote on. An affidavit would be required to that effect before the vote could proceed.
* The other was a single purpose bill act, which mandated that bills could only address a specific subject. All amendments or additions must be in reference to the actual bill. No riders could be attached to any bill. The subject of the proposed riders would require a specific, separate bill on that subject.
* These two bills would have made the US Government function much better, and in the People's interest. It would have removed pork barrel riders on good bills, or things like increased surveillance riders appearing in agriculture bills, etc.
* There would be intelligent discussion of bills. Bills would be short and to the point, rather than bills the size of dictionaries with riders attached for anything under the sun.
* A single purpose bill would be brief, discussed intelligently, understood by all, and voted on, one way or the other without delay. Can you imagine how much business could be done with this format?
* We could not get a single sponsor for either bill, in either the house or the Senate. Apparently nobody wanted to give up their pork barrels in favor of good government.
* So, here we are!
;-})


#8

They'll get this deal through eventually. They always do. This is just a temporary road block. They're used to it. They have the resources…time, money and expertise to outmaneuver the citizenry. Hope I'm wrong, but I'd almost bet the farm they'll get what they want.


#9

Fast Track is meant to provide cover to politicians as TPP and TTIP are less about trade and more about transferring judicial authority from governments to corporations! Corporations and the .01% are about to finalize their complete take over of America and thus the world. One World Government is about to happen and will be 100% controled by the .01% for their exclusive benefit and the world's people be dammed! Extermination of 6+ billion people will soon happen in the near future to save the environment from global warming and to conserve the ever scarce world's resources for the exclusive benefit of the 1%. Computers, robotics & GMO research will make large populations not only unnecessary but fatal to sustainable human civilization!


#10

I supported those efforts minitrue, and was sad to see them fade away. Any chance of revival on either/both of those bills?


#11

The heat is on! Turn it up!

A little workin' music -


#12

Wow. Bernie blew that opportunity! frowning


#13

TPP needs a new name. The Trans Pacific Partnership is cotporatocracy's TRAPP


#14

That will be up to us ....


#15

OK - 97 voted, who were the three that did not? Did Wyden vote "No" or did he just not vote?


#18

The fact that just about all pro-TPP Dem Senators voted against this tells me this vote wasn't about TPP. It seems to have been about wrangling over other issues, as this article makes clear (good job, Ms Fulton!). Harry Reid wanted a guarantee that four bills (highway bill, surveillance, customs enforcement, African Trade preference) would be taken up by the Senate. McConnell didn't want that to happen. So, the fast track bill gets derailed over other political considerations with the Dem minority trying to get as much out of this vote as it can. But you can be sure that conversations are continuing right now about how to get fast track done anyway.

My bet is that the Dems get votes on at least some of these bills. At that point, today's Democrat opposition vanishes into the fog of Foggy Bottom, pro-TPP Dems get to re-establish their cred with the 1%, and the fight gets real again.


#20

Having listened to Obama lie and spin the TPA/TPP, and having heard
his unwarranted attacks on the Dems who oppose the TPA/TPP,
I now consider the President to be morally corrupt, and won't
make any more excuses for him in the future.


#21

"According to news reports, a cloture motion to cut off a filibuster and proceed to debate fell short of the 60 votes necessary to pass. Sen. Tom Carper, of Delaware, was the only Democrat to vote yes."

On this matter, there IS a striking difference between the parties... at least for now. Either you can't read or your goal is obfuscation.


#22

I don't know. Our problem, as I mentioned, is that there seemed to be nobody in Congress who would sponsor or support the bills. We got a letter writing campaign going, but it was hard to even get an answer from our alleged representatives.
* I did a lot of writing on the subject, but after a couple of computer crashes and an invasion or two, a lot of my stuff has disappeared. OpEdNews might have some of it in their morgue, perhaps.
* I'd love to see that come up again. We were trying to foster representative Constitutional government, but few seemed interested in the concept.
;-})


#23

He pulled his support on Monday because he couldn't get the Majority Leader to agree to side agreements. Which had to do with currency, environment and the courts, etc. They'll see if the House will pass the TTP without side agreements, next. If not, expect to see Obama to blow a head gasket, in the Democratic Senate cloak room. Durbin and Schumer are going to get whipped like a rented mule by the WH and we'll see if Reid protects the Progressives. Chairmanships, etc. The bigger question is, " Will Hilary die on this hill or will it be Keystone XL that she buckles on? Hillary is not going to buffalo the left, anymore. She's going to get clobbered on The InterTubes by them unless she's signs onto a real agenda for the 99s.


#24

I call it the Toilet Paper Plan, designed to wipe us all out.
;-})


#25

Got a constituent email today from Senator Ron Wyden explaining his vote:

"Earlier today, I joined almost all of my Democratic colleagues and voted against moving forward with the "fast track" Trade Promotion Authority bill.

Here's why:

As I told you last month, it is critical that any new trade agreements protect American workers, level the playing field, protect human rights, raise labor standards, protect the environment, and defend a free and open internet.

If we're going to strike a trade agreement, it has to be a fair deal for American workers.

To make that happen, I negotiated an agreement with Republicans in the Senate. We agreed to move forward with votes on critical enforcement provisions at the same time as the vote on trade promotion authority. We had a deal.

But today, it became clear that the Republican leadership in the Senate would insist on moving forward on expanding trade without the accompanying enforcement provisions.

Without enforcement, this trade deal is a bad deal for America. Without enforcement, this trade deal would fail to protect our workers against trade cheats. Without enforcement, this trade deal would allow the shameful practices of child labor and slavery to continue unchecked.

As I told my colleagues, if we don't have a deal on enforcement, then we don't have a deal on trade.

No deal means no deal.

I remain committed to expanding trade opportunities for Oregonians and all Americans. But we're going to do it right.

I'll keep you posted."