Transcripts For CSPAN Newsmakers 20150426 : vimarsana.com

Them at next, newsmakers with ohio senator sherrod brown. Then we will show you some of the Senate Floor Debate on Loretta Lynch and her nomination to be the next attorney general. After that, Hillary Clinton in new hampshire. Host this week on newsmakers we want to welcome sherrod brown, democrat of ohio, in studio with us. We also have two reporters Chuck Babington and siobhan hughes. Reporter trade is a big issue this week. I know you have a lot problems with the bill. It is starting to move in the house. Im wondering what you think the chances are in the process is of somehow stopping or modifying fasttrack on the senate floor. Sen. Brown earlier in the week, we made some improvements in fasttrack. It is not nearly good enough. We actually passed an amendment to eliminate loopholes that some companies have used to engage in child they labor in africa. That was a loophole that was around for 75 years. We were successful in some strong enforcement language to level the playing field, something that people have been trying to do for over a decade that would help American Companies in starting to level the playing field. Using about what fasttrack means. It would affect 50 of the worlds gdp. We have not done a fasttrack bill, anything close to this and over a decade. Congress needs to be serious about this, slow it down, spent a lot of time debating it. Not coincidentally, the more the public knows about these trade agreements, the less they like about them. Many in this town want to see it passed. Those same Interest Groups have a history of outsourcing jobs. That is why it is so important. It costs us jobs. This trade agreement would let china, without a vote of congress, to be involved. We are engaging with our partners who play by a different set of rules from what we play. That is the role of fixing currency manipulation which china and japan used to do. China does repeatedly. All of those are important to fix if this bill was ahead. Reporter maybe i should have set up the top, fasttrack allows the president to present congress with a deal that they can vote up and down, but not a men. Everyone agrees that it makes it easier to get done. To be clear, you have real problems with the bill as it is now and would like to see it derailed or changed. Sen. Brown fasttrack is basically an instruction booklet. It says to, this is how you negotiate trade agreements. You Pay Attention to currency, labor rights, the environment and yet, the second part of the instruction booklet is how this legislation, this trade agreement, would actually passed congress. Interestingly, there is no other bill in congress, no other legislative effort, then trade with the exception of budget reconciliation, where in the senate you do not need 60 votes, debate is limited, time is limited, you can put no hold on it, and have no amendments. That is in large part i would add on top of that, we have never seen this kind of secrecy and trade d dealings that we have seen with fasttrack and the Transpacific Partnership where access to this trade agreement, access to even Congressional Staff reading this agreement has been limited. It is limited to such degree, actually more limited to getting access by those staff people to have clearance for purposes of national security, they can get into see iran sanctions or cia or department of defense documents more easily than they can see this trade agreement which would suggest, what are they hiding . One of the things we know they are hiding is this trade agreement shifts power to corporations on the expense of democratic governments. We are seeing that increasingly, and later on i can talk about a couple of cases where Tobacco Companies have had an immense power to counsel Public Health laws, particularly those aimed at children smoking that these trade agreements have allowed. Sen. Brown you came to congr reporter you came to congress and overwrite into the nafta debate. People are saying now, nafta did not work, but we can cut a better deal. Can you respond to that explanation that this time is different. Sen. Brown i know from seven or eight trade agreements that every time, each president , of which of her party, says that this time is different. They make job promises that never happened. They make promises about labor and the environment that dont happen. This trade agreement, there is really little in this. There is a little more transparency than the fasttrack proposal a couple of years ago or fasttrack of 10 years ago. A little more transparency, a little more access to the public maybe, for tpp than there was in the past. It sounds like the same promises and nothing really has changed. President obama pledged in cleveland, ohio, i was an audience, in a debate with then senator clinton, senator obama promised as the clinton that he or she would renegotiate nafta. We have not seen that. These promises have been empty by administrations of both parties. Reporter canada and mexico would be part of the Transpacific Partnership, that is the 12 country trade debate. Is this a chance to renegotiate nafta . Sen. Brown that is what they say, but they are not really renegotiating nafta. In fact, some of the country of origin rules may be worse than they were. We dont know that for sure because the trade rep will not talk to us about those things. The synchronous secret andness of this trade agreement is astounding. Again, the reason this is the past, the bill was only introduce on thursday. There were not going to do a hearing. That was tuesday. The bill was voted on. This affects more than 50 of the worlds gdp. To move that quickly says that the public light shines on these trade agreements, the more people know about it, the less they are popular. Someone said you can never pass a treat agreement trade agreement and and even the numbered year. You can bet, Republican Leaders in the senate and the house, and the president want to see this trade agreement passed in 2015 because they know it would be much harder to pass when senators and house members are faced with a vote at the polls soon after they vote on the trade agreement. Reporter you referred to currency manipulation, which is one a government artificially keep its currency below market value and it makes it easier to export goods because they are more affordable to foreign countries. In your committee, there was an effort to put language to combat currency alleges the fasttrack ill and that failed. Another bill to go on a customs bill. Are you concerned that there is not enough teeth in an effort for the United States to deal with the currency manipulation . Sen. Brown certainly theyre not enough teeth. I know the Republican Leadership does not like the currency legislation nor the president. Ffor to win its way through the process will be difficult. We felt short at the market earlier this week with currency to make negotiating objective. Think about this. The negotiating objectives that we all fight for a labor objective, or human rights, or currency, or negotiating objective for enforcement, they are written into fasttrack and then the negotiator, the u. S. Trade rep, these are our objectives, but there is no enforcement on these objectives, the negotiator can go in and say i tried. Last night, with other night at the hearing, i was probably not all that funny, but i try try to be, i said ambassador foreman is watching live coverage of this markup as we pass objectives for him to carry out. He will carry them out if he wants to carry them out or the president wants him to carry them out. There has been no sign of our trade routes standing up for any of these issues in a way that is meaningful to american workers. That is why when permanent normal trade relations passed in the house. We had a trade deficit with china around 15 million. Now that is 24 billion per month. A trade deficit means that you are buying and then selling to that company. Every decade we buy almost more than 1 million that we sell to china. Economists will say that a Million Dollars of trade deficit will translate into thousands of jobs because youre not making it any longer in this country. Host critics say this is an effort by labor unions and all of you to kill the transpacific trade deal, that it is a poison bill. Sen. Brown i want more trade. I dont understand why the supporters of these trade agreements always say or always resist making these trade agreements better. They want the 1993 version of nafta, very little change, and then they say that we are trying to kill it. When china sells into the United States, they get a 20 bonus. When we sell to china, we get a 20 penalty. That is why the trade agreement has gone up to 1 million per day. The currency bill is aimed at all countries and trade enforcement with all countries. You are right in this little earlier in the week, there was a currency law that would affect the world, if you will, and there was a currency provision in fasttrack that would affect those 11 countries. Reporter with there be an effort to add currency manipulation amendment . Sen. Brown it has a very good chance. There will be dozens if not hundreds of amendments. Understand the on the senate floor, it is a much more senators at large, as a whole body, was much less favorable to these freetrade agreements as the committee itself. Both the ways and means in the house and the finance committee and the senate, for whatever reason, they think freetrade works for our country in ways that i dont really understand. When it is open to the whole senate, i think you will see a different outcome. Reporter do you have any concern that senator Mitch Mcconnell may break his amendment pledge . Sen. Brown i would think that mcconnell wouldnt do that. I have no idea. I dont know Mitch Mcconnells mind. I might share a river with them, if you will. If you consider that we have not done a major trade issue like this in a dozen years, at least 50 of world gdp is included in the Transpacific Partnership and the next agreement governmed by the fasttrack provisions called ttip. Reporter talk about trade politics. Ohio your other senator from ohio is a republican and used to be a u. S. Trade representative. You think a person from that position would be very gung ho on trade, but he supported this currency manipulation amendment and yet he voted on the final bill and you voted against it. You have different positions on trade. Will ohio voters support both positions . Why do we see the division . Sen. Brown i guess you should interview him. Reporter he is effort reelection next year and you are not. Sen. Brown one of the differences, i talk about trade all the sign. I know what it does for my state. When rock runs for election he rarely mentions trade. I dont know if that makes my position more in line with the public, i think it is. Im sure he has a different view. Host when you run for reelection, you run for trade all the time. What is your advice to go sen. Brown all the time is an exaggerate. Host what is your advice to Hillary Clinton for ohio voters . Sen. Brown my advice is that she needs to stand up for workers, talk about these trade agreements, and how this agreement may let china into the back door without a congressional vote. That is a serious problem. Im hopeful that she speaks on the issue of currency because we do play by different rules than our competitors. I am hopeful that she speaks out on how this is a shift of Corporate Power from democratically elected governments to multinational corporations. I urge everybody to speak out, not just hillary. I dont put her in a different category here. Host let me ask you, how big is trade for you to give her your endorsement . Sen. Brown i will answer of easily and say that im talking to her about trade, and talking to her staff. I think she has had a history, im pretty sure that she voted against fasttrack. Im pretty sure she voted against cafta, im not sure about that. I know she made a commitment to renegotiate nafta in 2008. Im hopeful that she is not far from my position. I dont know for sure because i would have to dig deep down on where she is on this issue. It is important to me and to the country. Host you have been talking to her . Sen. Brown i have talked to her staff, to her briefly. We have not had a conversation directly in great detail on trade only. Her office was right across the hall from line. Mine. Reporter as secretary of state she did endorse this deal . Does that make it difficult for her as a candidate . Sen. Brown i dont think you can blame her for taking the position of her boss. One of the intriguing things that we talked about earlier is how many officials have weighed in on this trade agreement. A kind of breaks my heart that the administration has not fought as hard for minimum wage, for overtime rules that would give millions of americans to raise, did not fight nearly as hard for medicare 55. As a fight for this trade agreement, it breaks my heart. I believe those are so important and this does not represent the values that i think the American People share about fair play, justice, and jobs. Let me come back to the steering and wanted to mention this. One of the limits left by the failed was something called investor state relations. It is where it gives Companies Standing to sue foreign governments. Something that has not been done much, but will be done more. What happened, the government of australia not long ago past what is called a plain packaging law for cigarettes. Cigarette packages could not have the logo of camel or anything, it could just have that is in black and white, and a picture of a grotesque long or something. That is how they decided to combat tobacco, especially among young people. Their legislatior past it and it was upheld. Philip morris had sued the government, and that is when it went to court. The Supreme Court decided that yes, the law was constitutional. Philip morris then set up a subsidiary in hong kong under one of these investor state division susan the government of australia to overturn the tobacco law. The three people sitting on a panel to make the decision are three trailers, none of whom live in australia. What you are seeing in these trade agreements is if a company does not like a law for whatever reason in the country, a Public Health law or a minimum wage law, or some law that deals with the environment, they can actually sue through these trade agreements to the governments. The people who sit on these panels can often have conflict of interest. They are trained lawyers and have no connection necessarily to the country being sued. Why should a law be created as the fasttrack and tpp does to tell a government, no you cannot have outlawed. That is why this huge shift of power from democratically elected governments and courts to Public Interest all over the world undermine what we believe in as a nation. I dont want some other country overturning workers comp. Decisi or minimum wage. Why should some one be able to jeopardize a country that way . Host we have five minutes left. Reporter trade agreement assistance here you can you talk about what that is and what happened on wednesday night that you were not so happy with . Sen. Brown we know trade assistance works when a union or workers can show they lost their job based on a trade agreement like nafta. Hundreds of thousands of people have shown that. They get some training money. They lost their job because of the congress and nafta. They get some trainingg money so they can move on to do something else. They lose their jobs they become electricians, something that helps their lives move forward. I think it is important because theres no question in my mind that this new agreement will cost jobs. They always do. As you said at the beginning making these promises, they make the promises, but we never live up to the promises on job growth. On a mostly partyline vote, one republican, one from ohio voted with me, all the others voted no. We were unsuccessful in raising the amount. I dont know how you can say, we could pass this trade agreement, but if you lose your job, sorry, you are on your own. Reporter on the senate aging committee, fast crash had its anniversary. Could that happen again . Sen. Brown i think any number of bad things could happen in our Banking System that we are not prepared for. I think we are more prepared today than we were in 2007 and 2008. Flash crash, what bothered me about that is some of these problems are spotted by whistleblowers, not regulators. I had breakfast with janet yellen earlier in the week. She is increasingly aware, i think she is the best fed chair that we have had in a long time, she has an incredible mind, coupled with humility. You dont see that often in this town. I think she is very aware of potential problems. That gives you more confidence. I dont think august has done its job with capital standards generally. I think regulators are still too close to wall street. They are more independent than the used to be perhaps, but we still have more work to do on too big to fail. Reporter are you making any headway in negotiations with the Banking Committee chairman . Sen. Brown senator shelby and i have talks. Our staff are negotiating. We can come to consensus like this on Regulatory Reform for Community Banks and small credit unions. The question is does senator shelby and his staff want to weaken some of the wall street consumer p positions . If we stick to the agenda of small banks, credit unions, Community Banks, some issues like that, we will have consensus and pass a bill to send to the present. I know what is happening in the past, particularly in the house of representatives, when we have some amendments where we can agree, the house of representatives tries to lard in iten it up, if you will. I will not stand, we will not agree to weakening Consumer Protections or giving breaks to wall street. Every time that happens, the economy is jeopardized the strength of the economy is jeopardized. Reporter what about changing the threshold as things are treated and subject to higher regulations . Sen. Brown there is no republican agreement on that. The number is 50 billion now. Someone to move to a different amount or no threshold at all. Coming with our series of rules. No one really thinks that rules that i think are important for safety and soundness and no one really believes that a 50 billion bank or a 100 billion break that we have in my state, three like that, nobody believes that they are systemically a Systemic Risk that if one of them failed, the economy would fail like jp morgan or chase or any of them failed. We do understand it through four of them failed at the same time in about economy, it could have a ripple effect. Ive open to discussing that on a 50 billion threshold, but i want to make sure were not relaxing safety and soundness rules coming along with that. That is really the crux of the issue. Host we will leave it there for now. Thank you very much for being the guest on this weeks newsmakers. We are back with our reporters. Chuck, let me begin with you on the timeline of passing trade Promotion Authority that gives the president the fasttrack legislation that he needs to get any trade deals push through congress. What is the timeline on that . And what is the timeline then on the deals that the administration is negotiating . Reporter the fasttrack legislation, after a lot of talking, is finally moving. The final vote was pretty strong. There was more contention about the currency issue, but the final vote on that was big. Nowadays in the house ways and means committee. It is closer to a partyline vote. It is moving simultaneously in the house and senate. We dont know exactly when it will get to the floor. Probably in the next few weeks. I dont think anybody seizes lapsing into summer. The president will feel that he will have momentum and will want to go with the momentum. And the house, there is a question there are some House Republicans they dont want to give the president any new authority, whatever it is, including trade authority. The president and his allies will have to bring a fair amount of democrats on board and that could be difficult in the house. Host siobhan hughes, where our democrats on this . Reporter there is major attention right now between the white house and democrats. It is more pronounced among the progressives than it is in the broader caucus. It is also more pronounced on the house side than on the senate. In the senate, there will very likely be enough democrats to pass this through the senate. People like tom carper were on board. You are also looking at people, for instance, like tim kaine from virginia. Virginia is a state where they are really and support of the fasttrack bill. The house side is a totally different story. There, people are focused on their districts where people are literally saying, we know you support president obama on many things, please dont go with him on this. Host the politics on trade are interesting. The senator was saying, the more people know about these trade deals, the less they like them. A poll recently came out that when you ask americans if trade deals benefit the economy, they say, yes they do. How does the administration go forward . Reporter the administration tries to portray it in exactly the terms that you describe, in generic terms. They say, 95 of consumers do not live in the United States, we need to open up markets. That means that u. S. Goods and services can go to those places. Generically, that makes sense. The critics, including senator brown would say, lets look at the details. Past promises have not borne out. It is not an acrosstheboard benefit. Then they talk about other things including worker conditions, environmental conditions. They argue that a lot of these Asian Countries cut corners, do not treat workers right or the environment right. It is extremely complex. The average person will not know the details, no one would. Both sides can allow details that they want and be very honest about those details. Host what does it mean for 2016 . If this tr Transpacific Partnership deal does not come up, i think the papers are saying it will be left till october, full swing for thousand 16 politics. What did you