She was a tiger on the Senate floor today --see this May 20th C-Span coverage (fast forward to 03:33:24) and the May 19th C-Span here: (fast forward to 13:03). The May 20th Congressional Record will be available tomorrow. But now, lets go to the background and context for her speech.
Elizabeth Warren amendment # S.AMDT.1326: Monday May 18th, Amendment SA 1326 proposed by Sen. Warren and Sen. McCaskill to amendment SA 1221 and to the bill H.R. 1314
text: CR S2995 The amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 106(b), add the following:
(7) FOR AGREEMENTS THAT THREATEN UNITED STATES SOVEREIGNTY.--The trade authorities procedures shall not apply to an implementing bill submitted with respect to a trade agreement entered into under section 103(b) if--
(A) the agreement, the implementing bill, or any statement of administrative action described in subsection (a)(1)(E)(ii) proposed to implement the agreement, includes an investor-state dispute settlement arbitration mechanism; and
(B) any other party to the agreement has opted out of all or part of the arbitration mechanism.
Elizabeth Warren amendment # S.AMDT.1327: Monday May 18th, Amendment SA 1327 proposed by Sen. Warren and 15 others to Amendment SA 1221 to amend H.R. 1314
text: CR S2995 Her 15 Cosponsors are Senators Heitkamp, Manchin, Durbin, Boxer, Brown, Casey, Franken, Blumenthal, Baldwin, Markey, Peters, Whitehouse, Schatz, Udall, Heinrich. The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit application of the trade authorities procedures to an implementing bill submitted with respect to a trade agreement that includes investor-state dispute settlement.) At the end of section 106(b), add the following:
(7) FOR AGREEMENTS THAT THREATEN UNITED STATES SOVEREIGNTY.--The trade authorities procedures shall not apply to an implementing bill submitted with respect to a trade agreement or trade agreements entered into under section 103(b) if such agreement or agreements, the implementing bill, or any statement of administrative action described in subsection (a)(1)(E)(ii) proposed to implement such agreement or agreements, includes investor-state dispute settlement.
Elizabeth Warren amendment # S.AMDT.1328: Monday May 18th, Amendment SA 1328 proposed by Sen. Warren and 3 others to Amendment SA 1221 to amend H.R. 1314
text: CR S2995 Her 3 Cosponsors are Senators Merkley, Blumenthal, Baldwin. The amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 106(b), add the following:
(7) FOR AGREEMENTS THAT UNDERMINE THE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES.--The trade authorities procedures shall not apply to an implementing bill submitted with respect to a trade agreement or trade agreements entered into under section 103(b) if such agreement or agreements include provisions relating to financial services regulation.
Christopher Murphy amendment # S.AMDT.1333: Monday May 18th, Amendment SA 1333 proposed by Sen. Murphy and 2 others to Amendment SA 1221 to amend H.R. 1314
text: CR S2996 His 2 Cosponsors are Senators Warren and Baldwin. The amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 102(a), add the following: (13) to preserve and grow manufacturing in the United States by recognizing the implications to the national security of the United States of the erosion of the defense industrial base and to ensure that any waiver under section 301 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2511) regarding Government procurement is exercised only if--
(A) the waiver does not cause the closure of a domestic manufacturer; and
(B) domestic manufacturers are unable to produce the item to be procured.
also see: Portman-Stabenow amendment # S.AMDT.1299: on currency manipulation.
May 18, 2015 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S2984 [GPO's PDF] Mr. Portman, proposes an amendment numbered 1299 to amendment No. 1221 to amend H.R. 1314. His 20 Cosponsors are Senators Stabenow, Burr, Brown, Casey, Schumer, Graham, Shaheen, Heitkamp, Baldwin, Klobuchar, Manchin, Warren, Collins, Donnelly, Franken, Menendez, Hirono, Merkley, Peters, Whitehouse. The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make it a principal negotiating objective of the United States to address currency manipulation in trade agreements)
In section 102(b), strike paragraph (11) and insert the following:
(11) CURRENCY MANIPULATION.--The principal negotiating objective of the United States with respect to unfair currency exchange practices is to target protracted large-scale intervention in one direction in the exchange markets by a party to a trade agreement to gain an unfair competitive advantage in trade over other parties to the agreement, by establishing strong and enforceable rules against exchange rate manipulation that are subject to the same dispute settlement procedures and remedies as other enforceable obligations under the agreement and are consistent with existing principles and agreements of the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. Nothing in the previous sentence shall be construed to restrict the exercise of domestic monetary policy.
May 19, 2015 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S3025 [GPO's PDF]
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Thank you, Mr. President.
I want to start by saying thank you to Senator Brown for his extraordinary leadership on this issue and his determination that voices be heard around this country on this trade debate, that the people who are actually affected be heard from. I say thank you very much to Senator Brown for all he has done here.
AMENDMENT NO. 1327
Mr. President, I join with Senator Heitkamp, Senator Manchin, and a number of other Senators to propose a simple change to the fast-track bill, a change that would prevent Congress from using this expedited process on any trade deal that includes so-called investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
I come to the floor to urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
ISDS is an obscure process that allows big companies to go to corporate-friendly arbitration panels that sit outside any court system in order to challenge laws they don't like. These panels can force taxpayers to write huge checks to those big corporations, with no need to file a suit in court, no appeals, and no judicial review.
Most Americans don't think the minimum wage or antismoking regulations are trade barriers, but a foreign corporation used ISDS to sue Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage. Tobacco giant Philip Morris went after Australia and Uruguay to stop their rules to cut smoking rates. Under the TPP, corporations can use these corporate-friendly panels to challenge rules right here in America.
It wasn't always this way. ISDS has been around for a while, and from 1959 to 2002 there were fewer than 100 claims in the whole world. But, boy, has that changed. In 2012 alone, there were 58 cases. Corporate lawyers have started figuring out just how powerful a tool these panels can be for corporate clients. The huge financial penalties that these cases can impose on taxpayers have already caused New Zealand to give up on some tough antismoking rules. It has already caused Germany to pull back from clean water protections, and it has caused Canada to stand down on environmental protections.
If that worries you, you are not alone. Experts from all over the political spectrum--conservatives and liberals, economists and legal scholars on the left and the right, opponents of trade deals and supporters of trade deals--have all argued that these corporate-friendly panels should be dropped from our future trade deals.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that we should not give ``investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules.''
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, and other top American legal experts noted that ``the threat and expense of ISDS proceedings have forced nations to abandon important public policies'' and that ``laws and regulations enacted by democratically elected officials are put at risk in a process insulated from democratic input.''
The head of the trade policy program at the conservative CATO Institute has said that ISDS ``raises serious questions about democratic accountability, sovereignty, checks and balances, and the separation of powers''--concerns that ``libertarians and other free market advocates should share.''
ISDS is a major part of the reason why, no matter what promises are made, huge trade deals often just tilt the playing field further in favor of big multinational corporations. If a country wants to adopt strong new protections for workers, such as an increase in the minimum wage, a corporation can use these corporate-friendly panels to seek millions--or billions--in taxpayer compensation because the new rules might eat into the company's profits.
But, boy, it doesn't work in the other direction. If a country wants to undermine worker rights by allowing child labor or slave labor or paying workers pennies an hour, there is no special worker-friendly process for challenging that. Instead, advocates for workers are stuck begging their governments to bring enforcement actions and protect their rights. That process can take years, if the government responds at all. In fact, just yesterday my office released a 15-page report detailing how for decades both Republican and Democratic Presidents made the same promises over and over and over again about how good these deals would be for workers, and both Republican and Democratic Presidents failed to enforce the labor standards promises in those trade agreements.
Giving corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside our legal system is a terrible idea. Experts from every place on the political spectrum have concluded that it is unfair, it undermines the rule of law, it threatens American sovereignty, and it creates an end-run around the democratic process. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can keep [Page: S3026] GPO's PDF these corporate-friendly panels out of future trade agreements.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
Ms. Warren cosponsors noteworthy amendments # S.A.1365 &
S.A.1317 (Trade Remedy)
FOR AGREEMENTS WITH COUNTRIES THAT CRIMINALIZE HOMOSEXUALITY: Baldwin-Blumenthal # S.AMDT.1365: text CR S3005