House on thursday. It is now being taken up in the senate. The two lawmakers are credited with drafting a legislation that would fund the federal government for the next two years. Heres some of what they had to say about the deal. Well, we didnt get everything that we wanted, but i will tell you what we did get, certainty for the next two years. We are at a point now where were not could you tell everybody that were going to tour the economy in a tailspin because we have to have something. It importantly, a budget agreement is about how we can manage this countrys resources so we can have the things i do care passionately about, whether it is education or health care or transportation infrastructure. We were not managing our country in a way to get the things i cared about. On the right, my colleague in the house spoke to your colleague marco rubio. He called us and unamerican deal. There are conservatives who say that you and others made a promise, acrosstheboard cuts. Going back on that now and there will be consequences they warn. My reaction to that is the budget control act which created the sequester said to replace the sequester oneforone. We have exceeded that. This results in net deficit reduction. But not much. No. Were not saying this is a massive agreement, gets government working. It is 85 billion of savings from what we call mandatory spending. 63 billion dollars of sequester leave. You dont get everything you want in dividing government heard with senator rubio said it was unamerican, is that because hes running for president . Im not going into what his motivations are for that, i know what i think and i know what i think is the right thing to do. Getting a budget agreement that reduces the deficit without raising taxes and prevents two government shutdowns from occurring in 2014 in my opinion is the right thing to do. Cspan, we bring Public Affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u. S. House, all as a Public Service of private industry. We are cspan, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. Now, you can watch us in hd. Next am a discussion about u. S. Trade policy and the issue of the president being able to negotiate International Trade agreements. This is hosted by the organization, economy in crisis. It is an hour and a half. I would like to welcome you this morning to our program called do we need fasttrack, the trade Promotional Authority. Some of you may have seen a program last week on the same topic on cspan3. I watched it. Fourd a panel of the former u. S. Trade representatives, including andey kantor and sue schwab several others. Although spry representatives seemed to have similar views on fast track. Today, youre going to hear some different views from some distinguished representatives of the Public Interest community and the labor movement. Our moderator today will introduce the speakers and i had the pleasure this morning to introduce our moderator charlie but. Charlie had a distinguished career both in government and private industry. Aom 1971 to 1980 he served in diplomatic position in the state department and that he joined the office of u. S. Trade representative kirk is a director of steel policy from 1980 to 1982. Steele was a particularly hot issue in those days. Some of you probably remember the voluntary restraint agreement. C then moved on to the post of Deputy Assistant u. S. Tr for 1983, and then was promoted to the post of assistant u. S. Trade representative kirk industry where he served from 8285. Finally, he finished out his career at ustr as assistant u. S. Trade representative for multilateral trade negotiations from 198588. This was the. Of the gatt uruguay round trade negotiations. A masters degree from the university of pennsylvania and has taught as an adjunct professor in business for the school of business. It is a pleasure to turn of our program now to charlie. [applause] you, less, for that kind introduction. It is more respect than old trade negotiators usually get. Am personally very grateful for that area do im grateful also to economy in crisis and the Bar Association for sponsoring this program and to all of you who raved the ice storm to get here so early on a monday morning. I think your presence here is testimony to the timeliness and importance of the larger debate that is shaping up or cross this town and in my experience all across our country. There is a lot of confusion among americans about what trade Promotion Authority really is, whether it is necessary or desirable and the specific role that fasttrack authority plays in the approval of trade agreements. Stage for this discussion, i want to very briefly present the case being a fastthose who assert track authority is an essential feature of american trade and economic wallace e. To take one prominent example, to cite the five answer the question that they posed why does america need trade Promotional Authority e the reasons are familiar to anyone who follows trade debates. I wont go into any detail. Number one, trade supports jobs and growth. Number two, trade is vital to threebusiness, and number , trade agreements level the playing field. And they get to the part that really is the core of the current controversy. I will read these in their full. Only a few bullet points each. Reason number four, we can do more to sees the benefits of trade. These are the points heard to extend these benefits, the u. S. Has embarked on a bold new trade agenda that includes negotiations for the Transpacific Partnership with 11 other asianpacific countries. The transatlantic trade and Investment Partnership teach it with the European Union and the trade in Services Agreement with some 50 other countries. Reason five, to do any of the above, they argue, America Needs tpa. Tore are four points here finalize his agreements, Congress Must approve tpa. The constitution gives the congress authority to regulate International Trade, but it gives the President Authority to negotiate with foreign governments. Thisuilds on constitutional partnership by requiring the executive branch to insult extensively with congress. During negotiations, while assuring u. S. Trading partners that they will receive an up or down vote at the end of the day. The last argument, every president since Franklin D Roosevelt has had tpa. Every president should have it. That is the baseline case answering clearly in the affirmative. It is my pleasure today to turn the microphone over to to distinguished speakers who have another take on the effectiveness and limitations of trade agreements and the appropriate roles for the congress and the executive branch and setting trade objectives, conducting trade negotiations and evaluating the results from those agreements. I would you ladies first. Lori wallach is a familiar figure among trade experts in ofhington, a graduate wellesley and harvard law purchasers is a director of public citizens global trade watch, whether or not they agree with her, those who care about trade and globalization recognize the depth of her knowledge and her ability to translate abstruse legal points into plain english. That is a challenge. Lori has done us all a service by researching and writing a book called the rise and fall of fasttrack Authority Published earlier this year. It is being studied and analyzed in many congressional and lobbying offices these days. Is a member bart cio Industrial Union council and serves as Vice President of the board of the International Metalworkers federation. In the past, he was a member of the Treasury DepartmentAdvisory Committee for the International Monetary fund and andly chain chairs currently chairs one of the advisory groups that are intended to provide the u. S. Trade representative kirk and other agencies with advice on a broad range of trade negotiation and trade policy issues. We are truly fortunate to have two such distinguished panelists. We look forward to the presentations followed by what i am will be a lively discussion. With no further ado, tom, the floor is yours. Thank you very much for the kind introduction and i do want to clarify one point. Ofing served in the capacity a member of the Treasury Departments advisory on the International Monetary fund, that was a bad imf. Im honored to still serve, amugh it has been named i a member of the good imf, the International Metalworkers federation. Ladies and tillman, it is an honor to be here this morning. The iam represents several hundred thousand active and retired members in north america. Our members work in a variety of industries, including aerospace, transportation, shipbuilding, woodworking, defense and electronics, to name a few. Iam members design, build and assemble and maintain the goods and services that keep the u. S. Economy growing. They keep the u. S. Safe and secure. Our members produce goods and services that are exported all over the world. While we believe in global trade, and we have seen ourthand its benefits, members have also felt its harsh impact. Global economy that works for u. S. Workers as well as workers throughout the world. Sadly, we have a long way to go in order to make this a reality. U. S. Aerospace workers whose jobs have moved to mexico or over 1000 bangladeshi whilel workers who died a earning roughly . 18 an hour, for enslaved children working on cocoa plantations in the ivory coast, or for the millions of people who work every day for wages that are far below poverty level, the Global Economy has failed them. Hasnations trade policy contributed to this failure. It has led to trade agreements with countries like mexico, which continued to persecute mexican trade unionists such as napoleon gomez. It has led to agreements with , where we have lost several thousand jobs so far and it has led to the trade agreement with colombia where despite labor action plan, trade Union Activists still fear for their lives. Policy isal trade leading us once again into a future where u. S. Workers have no future. Circulatentinue to that negotiators are approaching agreement on a new trade deal. ,he Transpacific Partnership also known as tpp. The u. S. , along with 11 other nations, including vietnam and brunei, will try to form a trade bloc that we believe will be based on naftas failed policies. Dream offinalized, the a Global Economy that works for the worlds workers will become even more distant. Tpp is implemented, u. S. Manufacturing may find itself on the endangered species list. Soon, the fullcourt press will tpp. To pass proponents want to sidestep through the old framework of fasttrack by limiting Congressional Authority to reveal or review the deal. They will claim how the agreement will benefit our nation and support the creation of thousands of jobs. They will also argue that if we dont join the pack, we will get left behind. Resurrectundoubtedly the ridiculous claim that anyone who criticizes fasttrack authority and the tpp is anti trade. They could not be more wrong. Of fastinfully aware track authority in the past has been a precursor to trade agreements with mexico, colombia and south korea. They have wreaked havoc on colombianan and workers. Fasttrack authority is very much a part of our nations failed policy. It is a trade policy that is long overdue for a major overhaul. The iam firmly believes in a 21stcentury trade policy that focuses on workers and their communities, not the bottom line profit she of u. S. Corporations who have no loyalty to the workers that made them so profitable. The 21stcentury trade policy that we believe in does not merely Pay Lip Service to jobs when it is politically convenient. Will in fact lead to the creation and maintenance of good sectorsoss industries, and geographical locations. The 21stcentury trade policy that we advocate will not tolerate backroom deals which depend on keeping critical. Nformation from the public it will also not grant Foreign Investors greater rights than domestic companies. It will in no way interfere with national and local governments ability to protect our health, worker safety and social standards. It will make certain that no signatory country will manipulate its currency. And last but not least, our 21stcentury trade policy will once and for all mandatorily require that countries who want to be a part of trade agreements and the u. S. Recognize effectively enforce fundamental human rights which include labor standards defined by the ilos conventions before they are a trade to sign agreement with the United States. It cannot be business as usual when negotiating trade deals. We continue to urge congress to consider undertaking the following activities. First, learn from our past mistakes. Lets face it, grandiose predictions that trade agreements will support hundreds of thousands of u. S. Jobs have been lane wrong. Haveed to learn what we been before deciding where we need to go. Isnt it time that we at least studied the actual impact of having onements are all u. S. Workers before we consider yet another trade deal . We can start by fixing the method that our government uses to predict the numbers of jobs that will be impacted by trade agreements. At method has been wildly inaccurate. Worker manufacturing whose job has moved to mexico or whose wages have been kept low under the threat that his or her job will move to mexico. They would be the first of the question the accuracy of the prediction that nafta would , because00,000 jobs chances are high that their job was one of the nearly 700,000 u. S. Jobs that were lost to mexico by 2010. 20 years ago today, nafta was signed. Wrong estimates dont just involve nafta. According to the government, the u. S. South korea trade agreement would support 70,000 euros jobs. In reality, according to the Economic Policy institute, in a year after the agreement took effect, the increasing trade deficit with south korea has cost the u. S. At least 40,000 jobs, most in manufacturing. Any impact study must be straightforward, reliable and provide specific information on each trade agreements impact on u. S. Jobs by industry, geography, wages and benefits. Precise information cannot be gleaned by merely estimating job numbers from export valuations the way it is currently done. Congress and the American People have every right to know how trade agreements have been and will be affecting their jobs. Secondly, Congress Must assert its role in choosing our trade partners. Congress should define specific conditions that must be met for any potential trade agreement partner. These conditions should include a number of factors, including an examination of whether our country currently recognizes and enforces fundamental human rights, like the right to form a union and engage in collective bargaining, reflected by the ilo conventions and jurisprudence. Basichould also include information on whether a country manipulates its currency, violates environmental standards, uses subsidies or demands transfers of production and technology to implement its own industrial policies. Negotiation objectives laid out by Congress Must be mandatory and certified. Current fasttrack authority merely lists objectives without any requirement that each objective be met. If negotiation objectives are like at long last a labor chapter that is based on ilo conventions and jurisprudence, then the deal should not be eligible for Fast Track Authority. Must alsocountries certify that they have met all of the requirements divided under the trade agreement prior to passage. Re are simply no excuse there is no excuse that colombia could senator in agreement while Human Rights Violations continue. Each member of congress and relative committees should have a significant role in determining negotiation objectives. Fourthly, negotiations must be built on transparency. Do to the expedited nature of fasttrack, it is important that private groups have an opportunity to provide their advice on proposed trade agreements while most numbers of the public are not privy to the specific areas of trade negotiations, the ustr relies on the trade Advisory Committee system to obtain advice from individuals in the private sector. 1974 saw it tof achieve a mechanism for creating a strong and unified trade policy by providing opportunities for diverse trade impacted groups to engage in meaningful and effective consultations with government officials. Unfortunately, the trade Advisory Committee system is failing miserably to achieve this goal. Groups like labor have either been up underrepresented or not present at all in the Committee System the most seriously deficient level of trade advisory system is the third tier level concerning technical and detailed sectoral industrial matters. Indeed, despite statutory language indicating otherwise, not one labor representative is a member of the 16 industrial technical Advisory Committees no. As i tax representative from a Manu