As White House Makes Final Push On TPP, Congress Slams On The Brakes
from the some-good-news... dept
Things are heating up around the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, the trade agreement among many of the Pacific Rim countries that has tremendous problems. The US has been pushing very, very hard to get the deal signed and delivered by the end of the year. US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced that he still believes an agreement can be made by the end of the year."I think the important thing to remember is that the reason we are in the TPP discussion is the same as the reasons Singapore is -- same for Japan and the other countries are -- that it is in each of our own interest for there to be high quality agreement that benefits each of us individually and all of us together collectively.Of course, there are a number of indications that with some of the massive gaps between negotiating positions that still remain that it may be difficult to hammer out an agreement in time. But... it also might not matter much, because Congress may be slamming the brakes on the whole process. We just noted that a very large number of folks in Congress have told the White House that they're very uncomfortable giving the USTR "trade promotion authority" or "fast track authority," which would effectively have Congress giving up its Constitutionally defined role as the sole governmental branch that can "regulate commerce with foreign nations."
"And that is the reason why we are still optimistic that we can reach a successful conclusion of the TPP discussion this year."
In effect, without trade promotion authority, the USTR is negotiating without any real mandate. That is, the agreement itself is somewhat meaningless, because the USTR has no ability to commit the US to anything. Only Congress can do that, and it appears Congress is skeptical about giving up its Constitutional powers to the USTR -- and, given what's been seen in the leaked versions of the TPP (oh yeah, and the very fact that it had to be leaked in the first place) -- it seems Congress has some very good reasons to be wary of the USTR having any more power than it currently does.
So it's good to see that Rep. Steny Hoyer, the number two Democrat in the House, has basically said that there's almost no way Congress is giving the USTR trade promotion authority this year. Bizarrely, as the article notes, the Republicans seem overeager to support trade promotion authority, while it's the Democrats who are effectively blocking it. Yes, you read that right. The Republicans in the House, who have been fighting President Obama on nearly everything, are eager to give up their own constitutional powers in Congress and hand them directly to the Obama White House, while it's the President's own party that is (rightfully) concerned about moving forward with such a plan.
For the life of me, I cannot see why Republicans would support such a thing. It appears that a bunch of highly paid lobbyists are going around pretending that TPP is actually a "free trade" agreement, and telling Republicans they should be in favor of free trade. But it's not a free trade agreement at all (quite the opposite, actually). Maybe someone should explain to the Republicans that giving up their own sole power to regulate foreign commerce and handing it the White House, which has written a proposal designed to massively benefit traditional donors to Democratic candidates, isn't the wisest of political strategies.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, fast track authority, jack lew, steny hoyer, tpp, trade promotion authority, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike still doesn't see the globalist and corporatist aspects.
The TPP would strip our constitutional rights, while offering no gains for the majority of Americans. It's a win for corporations"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/trans-pacific-partnership-corporat e-usurp-congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike still doesn't see the globalist and corporatist aspects.
Except that's exactly what Mike said yesterday.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131119/16513725296/where-is-free-trade-tpp-ip-chapter.s html
And you commented on that post, so you know it. Yet you STILL pretend he doesn't say that.
What amazes me is that it's pretty clear that Mike agrees that TPP is a bad corporatist/crony attempt to stifle the rights of the public. In other words, you AGREE with him, and yet you're so stupid you attack him for having the same stance as you, while you don't realize it.
You take trolling to a new level. Attacking someone for agreeing with you, while making statements that suggest you don't even know your view is the same? That takes work or a special brand of stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike still doesn't see the globalist and corporatist aspects.
It is a waste of screen space!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not surprising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't the Obama Administration realize something?
Especially when the House has so much better work to do. Like bringing up a bill to repeal the ACA. AGAIN.
As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doesn't the Obama Administration realize something?
I think you are waaaaaay overestimating the residual influence of the Teabaggers after the shutdown debacle. Their brand has been poisoned. That shrunk and distilled them to only the most shrill outliers of the extreme right. Any thinking Republican is distancing themselves from the Teabaggers at a dead run. Everyone is reflecting on the Virginia beatdown. Once a reliable red state, it has become purple of late. But in the off year race for governor, lt. governor and AG three R's politically aligned with the Teabagger philosophy. Against the backdrop of Obamacare and the government shutdown, they got swept. Why? Well it wasn't on the strength of opponents. It was, it the words of one opposition commercial: "________________ is too extreme for Virginia".
As you've noted: we'll see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe the Republicans don't give a happy shit about the IP chapter as compared to the goodies for their traditional donors contained in the other 20+ chapters? And with midterm elections coming, how long do you think it will take the Dem's to get back in line on this? Maybe I shouldn't doubt the power of prayer, but I just don't see it here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That said, one should never underestimate the stupidity of politicians these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is a constitutional issue, Congress is supposed to be doing the negotiating for treaties, not the USTR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Life of the author + 100 years, perhaps?
I say 35 years max, with strong protections for fair use and the public domain. Who's with me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this just party politics as usual?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No one is happy with the lack of transparency that the USTR has done with Congress and Congress seeing the election vote coming has salted the process with a two fold idea.
Get some of that money for the war chest and at the same time teach the administration that secrecy that includes Congress which is responsible for those trade treaties isn't going to float.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fixed for accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republicans are out of feet to shoot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Republicans are out of feet to shoot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Republicans are out of feet to shoot
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/13/arizona-abortion-law-2012-pregnancy-fetus-ultrasound- late-term-abortion-20-weeks-jan-brewer_n_1422853.html
This law says you're pregnant from the day you're first capable of conception because they count the days of pregnancy from two weeks before a child is conceived. This means you can't be sure you're not pregnant at any given time under this law, even if there's no evidence of the hormonal changes, etc., that occur at conception.
Effectively, this makes the woman a ward of the state, not free to move about and make her own choices.
Meanwhile, if a rape survivor opts to keep the baby, the rapist may claim parental rights in most states:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/
So... riddle me this: what part of these laws do not constitute a gross violation of women's civil rights. It seems that in Red states, they don't have any. All men may be equal, but women? Not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Republicans are out of feet to shoot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Republicans are out of feet to shoot
Also, if you're going to claim someone hasn't answered your question, if you want to be taken seriously, you kinda need to provide a link to said question to either prove your assertion, and/or give them a chance to address the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Republicans are out of feet to shoot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama Acts Like Republican
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama Acts Like Republican
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obama Acts Like Republican
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2013/1028/The-irony-of-Republican-disapproval-of-Obam acare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm confused
Wouldn't it require a change to the Constitution to "give it up"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm confused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress doing it out of spite? really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]