This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key

Fwd: TPA/TPP

From:re47@hillaryclinton.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2015-04-13 22:02 Subject: Fwd: TPA/TPP

John articulated my thoughts better than I did...but I know the boss won't be comfortable putting her foot down. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I talked to Marlon today about this. Naturally we should not be making this decision in a policy vacuum or just because we are concerned about a story of her changing her mind or taking on Obama. It is so much bigger than this. Getting on the wrong side of Labor on the only issue they care about has ramifications on the ground in these early states. I say we suck it up and be as definitive as possible from the beginning that we don’t like these deals. We will be right with voters and right with labor. We get no integrity gold star for staying pure on this issue because of one line if friggin Hard Choices or because this is a key issue for a lame duck president. — John Anzalone Anzalone Liszt Grove Research 334-387-3121 www.algpolling.com twitter: @AnzaloneLiszt Marlon and Amanda are putting together a plan to reach out quickly whenever she steps out on this to frame for them on our terms On Apr 13, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Joel Benenson <jbenenson@bsgco.com> wrote: We clearly need a bigger strategic discussion about how to deal with labor as a constituencyb * * I'm good with Margolis' plan. On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Margolis, Jim <Jim.Margolis@gmmb.com> wrote: I’m for principle first, process second. So I’d go Jen, with the harder hit at the end from Robby. Closing with ‘I called Senator Wyden . I told him I can’t support his bill. * I am for three because it sends the strongest signal not only Labor but to where voters are on trade. They feel they always get the raw end of the deal. I am less concerned about historical blowback on her past position than this issue eating us alive for being on the wrong side and giving Progressives a real reason to try and push someone more weighty into the primary. There are no other issues that Labor cares about. This is it for them and they actually have voters on their side. John Anzalone Anzalone Liszt Grove Research 334-387-3121. Office @AnzaloneLiszt On Apr 13, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Jake Sullivan <jake.sullivan@gmail.com> wrote: For TPA/TPP, we have three options. *1. The Podesta/Jake option leads with supporting giving the President authority but indicating concern with the open-ended grant of authority. Podesta would add a bracketed sentence declaring opposition to the Wyden bill.* I called Senator Wyden. I told him I believe that President Obama should have the authority to negotiate a good TPP deal that delivers for the middle class, but I don't support extending that authority for years beyond this administration and this trade agreement. [And therefore I can't support his bill.] But the key question for me is not the procedure - it's what’s in the final agreement. It has to pass two tests: First, does it protect American workers, raise wages and create more good jobs at home than it displaces? And second, does it also strengthen our national security? If the agreement falls short of these tests, we should be willing to walk away. The goal is greater prosperity for American families, not trade for trade’s sake. There are a number of pivotal questions to be decided in the coming months: from improving labor rights, the environment, public health, and access to life-saving medicines; to cracking down on currency manipulation and unfair competition by state-owned enterprises; to opening new opportunities for our family farms and small businesses to export their products and services overseas. Getting these things right will go a long way toward ensuring that a final agreement will be a net plus for everyday Americans. We also have to get dispute settlement provisions right. So-called “investor-state dispute settlement,” or ISDS, lets individual companies bring cases to enforce trade agreements. In the past, ISDS has benefited some American companies by letting them challenge unfair actions by foreign governments. But as I warned in my book, *Hard Choices*, we shouldn’t allow multinational corporations to use ISDS to undermine legitimate health, social, economic, and environmental regulations, as Philip Morris has tried to do in Australia. So I’ll be watching closely to see how negotiations develop. *2. The Jen P. option would lead with TPP and then come to procedure.* The key question for me is not the procedure - it's what’s in the final agreement. It has to pass two tests: First, does it protect American workers, raise wages and create more good jobs at home than it displaces? And second, does it also strengthen our national security? If the agreement falls short of these tests, we should be willing to walk away. The goal is greater prosperity for American families, not trade for trade’s sake. There are a number of pivotal questions to be decided in the coming months: from improving labor rights, the environment, public health, and access to life-saving medicines; to cracking down on currency manipulation and unfair competition by state-owned enterprises; to opening new opportunities for our family farms and small businesses to export their products and services overseas. Getting these things right will go a long way toward ensuring that a final agreement will be a net plus for everyday Americans. We also have to get dispute settlement provisions right. So-called “investor-state dispute settlement,” or ISDS, lets individual companies bring cases to enforce trade agreements. In the past, ISDS has benefited some American companies by letting them challenge unfair actions by foreign governments. But as I warned in my book, *Hard Choices*, we shouldn’t allow multinational corporations to use ISDS to undermine legitimate health, social, economic, and environmental regulations, as Philip Morris has tried to do in Australia. So I’ll be watching closely to see how negotiations develop. As for process, I called Senator Wyden. I told him I believe that President Obama should have the authority to negotiate a good TPP deal that delivers for the middle class, but I don't support extending that authority for years beyond this administration and this trade agreement. [And therefore I can't support his bill.] *3. The Robby option would lean more heavily and decisively against TPA and TPP.* I called Senator Wyden. I told him I can't support his bill. I don't support a broad grant of trade authority that extends for years beyond this administration and this trade agreement. I think this President should have the authority to drive a hard bargain on TPP, but this broader bill doesn't work from my perspective. As for TPP, I'm going to set a very high bar. It has to pass two tests: First, does it protect American workers, raise wages and create more good jobs at home than it displaces? And second, does it also strengthen our national security? If the agreement falls short of these tests, we should be willing to walk away. The goal is greater prosperity for American families, not trade for trade’s sake. There are a number of pivotal questions to be decided in the coming months: from improving labor rights, the environment, public health, and access to life-saving medicines; to cracking down on currency manipulation and unfair competition by state-owned enterprises; to opening new opportunities for our family farms and small businesses to export their products and services overseas. Getting these things right will go a long way toward ensuring that a final agreement will be a net plus for everyday Americans. We also have to get dispute settlement provisions right. So-called “investor-state dispute settlement,” or ISDS, lets individual companies bring cases to enforce trade agreements. In the past, ISDS has benefited some American companies by letting them challenge unfair actions by foreign governments. But as I warned in my book, *Hard Choices*, we shouldn’t allow multinational corporations to use ISDS to undermine legitimate health, social, economic, and environmental regulations, as Philip Morris has tried to do in Australia. So I’ll be watching closely to see how negotiations develop. This email is intended only for the named addressee. It may contain information that is confidential/private, legally privileged, or copyright-protected, and you should handle it accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, you do not have legal rights to retain, copy, or distribute this email or its contents, and should promptly delete the email and all electronic copies in your system; do not retain copies in any media. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender promptly. Thank you.