News

FLY-IN to WASHINGTON, DC to ?STOP? TPP

11 Mar, 2015

TPP 1

Pictured Above (Left to Right): Martina Rangel-Ortiz (CWA Local 9588) and Intern from DC holding banner during the Press Conference held at 12 noon on March 4, 2015.

On March 4, 2015, over 500 lobbyist and activists ascended on our Nation’s Capital to “STOP” TPP. Five CWA District 9 Legislative Political Activists flew from California to Washington, DC to meet with Senatorial and Congressional targets regarding opposing the Trans Pacific Partnership and “Fast Track”. The California CWA delegation included, Robert Longer (Local 9421), Heladio Saldivar (Local 9421), Jesse Whitney (Local 9421), Adrian Regalado (Local 9421 and Martina Rangel-Ortega (9588). Meetings were held with Congressman Ami Bera, Congresswoman Doris Matsui, Congresswoman Norma Torres and Senators Feinstein and Boxer.

Below is a recap of the meeting with Congresswoman Doris Matsui:

Our CWA Local 9421 TPP/Fast Track team (Robert Longer, Jesse Whitney, Heladio Saldivar and Adrian Regalado) met with Doris Matsui in Washington, DC on Wednesday, March 4th at 4:00 p.m. It was a long meeting--1 hour and 15 minutes--with Congresswoman Matsui, Kyle Victor (Legislative Director) and Julie Eddy (Chief of Staff).

Matsui started out talking about how she appreciates our relationship, how she has always been with labor, and how she didn't like how the earlier meeting went in the hallway (the meeting the AFL-CIO arranged at 11:30 a.m. the same day where Matsui did not show).

In terms of taking a position, like Bera, she is saying she wants to see the Fast Track/TPA bill first, and questions lack of transparency on TPP overall. When asked directly if she will commit now to voting No on Fast Track for the TPP, again she said she wants to see the bill first, and can't commit sight unseen.

She says some concerns she has are: 1) Lack of transparency with TPP process and what is included in it; 2) Not knowing if basic trade components (e.g. TAA) are even part of TPP; 3) We should be concentrating on the Senate and convincing them before working on House; 4) Labor and others should have more input with USTR.

She then elaborated on how she's heard the spiel from United States Trade Representative (USTR) Froman a few times, from the Secretary of Commerce once, as well as directly from President of the United States (POTUS) once, in terms of how they're trying to sell this "improved" TPA and how America 'needs' trade. On this issue it's important to note that she does support trade. When I pointed out that we support trade--fair trade, not "free" trade--she said she agrees that we must be fair to labor, environment, etc. When I told her that this points back to transparency (or lack thereof) in that how do we know if the USTR will include better provisions for labor, etc (since he's not sharing anything) -- she acknowledged that if we can't see text, how can we verify what USTR and POTUS are saying? (Essentially making the same argument we were on lack of adequate transparency).

In her language and conversation it was clear that she seemed to be genuine in her belief that somehow she or Congress could help make TPP or future trade deals better with their input--because she feels China is a threat and America should be at the forefront of setting a tone of better trade deals for the region and world. When I pointed out that Obama's China threat is a scare tactic, she partly agreed and said she's not afraid of POTUS, and he knows this because she's a senior member in a safe district and that she worked for the Clinton administration and remembers NAFTA.

I again asked to setup an in-district meeting with coalition partners, and she said they will try to arrange a meeting, but it was a somewhat reluctant response. Kyle then said that they have met with the Sierra Club and others in DC. I pointed out that we need our local Sacramento coalition partners at the table with their Member of Congress, and underscored that constituents and our organizations input at the local level is critical. She then said she understands and will try to make this happen.

Overall she was engaging, direct and open with us, and I felt she was being genuine in terms of how she vocalized and viewed things. The only part that wasn’t so genuine was her apparent clear lack of enthusiasm when it came to setting up an in-district meeting with coalition partners. Otherwise it was a good meeting, albeit without resolution when it comes to securing a firm position on Fast Track. She is still squarely “undecided”.

Below is a recap of the meeting with Congressman Ami Bera:

Our CWA Local 9421 TPP/Fast Track team (Robert Longer, Jesse Whitney, Heladio Saldivar & Adrian Regalado), along with the AFL-CIO team (Art Pulaski, Angie Wei and Joshua Anijar) met with Ami Bera and Chad Obermiller (Chief of Staff) in Washington, DC on Wednesday, March 4th at 1:45 p.m. for about 45 minutes. Our CWA team had already separately met with Chad the same day at 10:30am for about 30 minutes.

Art started out talking about how labor is united against Fast Track and the TPP. He elaborated this is not just a labor issue however, and pointed out that it was not a partisan issue either, as Republicans are coming out against this too.

Bera acknowledged that he understands the TPP is not just about trade. He re-iterated that any trade deal should be good for American workers and jobs in this country. He said he was under pressure from POTUS and the USTR, and talked about his India trip.

In terms of taking a position, like Matsui, he again told us he wants to see the Fast Track/TPA Bill first, and yet questions lack of transparency on TPP overall. When asked again directly if he will commit now to voting No on Fast Track for the TPP, he said once more that he wants to see the bill first, and can't commit now to vote no.

This of course spurred conversation about transparency—we said if you have concerns about lack of transparency (as we do as well), then it should be a no-brainer to oppose Fast Track, because there will be no transparency if Congress relinquishes its authority to the Administration and allows the TPP to proceed. He then re-iterated that he shares our concerns about transparency, and that the Administration is saying that they are ‘open’ to letting people see TPP text. We responded that that is not correct, as labor and others have made repeated attempts to see the TPP and have been denied. I asked him if he had seen any of the TPP himself, and if not would he be inclined to make a request to the USTR to view it (or portions of it like the labor section); he said he could make a request, but he’s not a lawyer and he probably wouldn’t understand it even if he saw it.

He then said that he thinks we (labor) should have input into the process, and that he has asked the USTR and the Secretary of Labor to meet with us so that we can express our concerns directly to them. He repeated that he has already expressed concerns to the POTUS and USTR about lack of transparency and needs to add improvements in the area of labor standards, in particular. He added that he believes there should be a certification process for promises made in the TPP (e.g. labor section), wherein Congress or a Committee of Jurisdiction can enforce provisions; his direct quote on this was: “I want to see enforceable standards.”

Overall he was open with us, but has still not changed his position. He is still squarely “undecided”.