House Votes To Change Law Due To Trade Agreement, While Insisting That Trade Agreements Don't Change Laws
from the do-they-even-understand dept
Two weeks ago, the House Agriculture Committee voted 38-6 to repeal country-of-origin-labeling. (COOL), and now it's the full House's turn. In a 300-131 vote yesterday the "country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act" (HR 2393) passed with the support of a significant number of Democrats as well as the majority of Republicans.The bill's prompting and passage came after the World Trade Organisation ruled in favor of Canadian farmers, who sued claiming it was "discriminatory" and thus in violation of Free Trade Agreements. The problem? Cattle bought from abroad would have to be segregated from domestic cattle, increasing costs and making imports less desirable.
With Fast Track coming up for a vote -- perhaps even today -- it's curious to see this snippet in the Associated Press report on the vote by the Speaker of the House:
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said after the vote that the last thing American farmers need "is for Congress to sit idly by as international bureaucrats seek to punish them through retaliatory trade policies that could devastate agriculture as well as other industries."That is, of course, the same John Boehner that has been encouraging the President to get more support for Fast Track, in order to pass more of these "Free Trade" deals that impose more international bureaucrats and will almost certainly lead to more disputes that "require" Congress to "not sit idly by."
Meanwhile, remember what President Obama said at the Nike Plant just a few weeks ago:
[TPP] critics warn that parts of this deal would undermine American regulation -- food safety, worker safety, even financial regulations. They're making this stuff up. (Applause.) This is just not true. No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.Less than one month on, and we have exactly what he claimed 'is not true' happening. A trade agreement forcing a law change, and having what some would claim is an impact on food safety. And it's happening a day or so before the House is voting to create even more such situations while claiming that it won't do this. Do they not even recognize what it is they're voting on?
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, corporate sovereignty, fast track, house, isds, john boehner, nafta, tpp, trade agreements, trade promotion authority, ttip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is called spin, which is a synonym for lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BOLD FACE LIES
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why no. No they don't.
They're paid to vote, not to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why no. No they don't.
The U.S. selectively breeds politicians which evolve, genetically and culturally, into beings with unprecendented amounts of greed, recklessness and capacity for lying with a straight face, lying about what they either know to be false or which they cannot be bothered to look into themselves since it would actually require working for those minor but steady parts of their income they pocket from public coffers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why no. No they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vote roll call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: vote roll call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When the revolution happens there will be a statesmen hanging from every lamppost in the capitol area
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A fundamental purpose of trade agreements is to try and break down barriers to trade and favoritism within a country towards its domestic industries. Apparently domestic favoritism is seen here on this blog as a good thing, even though what it does is undercut competition in favor of entrenched interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Whether or not you (or the authors) agree with the law or its repeal doesn't matter here. Either way, it's perfectly right to criticize the ones making these claims when they're so clearly shown to be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Swing and a miss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Without country of origin labeling, how will you know if the food you're eating came from a country with lax production standards, like China? How many kids got sick or died from tainted baby food? How many pets did Chinese-made pet treats and toys kill? Do you really want to eat meat that was raised and processed there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And even if that weren't a concern, I am astounded that anyone thinks that people shouldn't have the right to know where their food comes from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one is arguing about that. Why change the subject other than the obvious: you and your friends want TPP so you'll mislead to get people away from the point.
You're so transparent. And not the good kind of transparency.
The point is simple. In fact, if you are who I think you are, I remember long debates with YOU about your insistence that ACTA and TPP could not and would not force the US to change a single law. You were most insistent on that fact.
And yet, when we post an example proving that you were full of shit, look how quickly you show up to try to change the subject.
Hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
while increasing the risk of cross animal infections and diseases.
'Do they not even recognize what it is they're voting on?'
dont be daft! of course they dont! and as it wont affect them, these politicians dont give a fuck either! on top of that, it makes no difference what Obama says, he flip-flops all over the place, changing his statements to suit the occasion, including ignoring what he wants to as well!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Less overall damage. And much cheaper to pay off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As for "Free Trade", that's a misnomer. Let's call them "Corporate Supremacy" agreements from now on, shall we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything's ok!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Everything's ok!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Everything's ok!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Everything's ok!
So yeah, bigotry works. *Sigh!*
Seriously, do a search on "Obamatrade" and see what you come up with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mooo!
The problem is - if ever there was a "level playing field" trade arrangement it's between the USA and Canada. It's hard to find more similar countries. If you want to argue against free trade where one side treats their workers or environment worse, that would be the USA not Canada. (and then there's Mexico)
NAFTA was duly negotiated, debated, voted on and signed by all 3 countries. AFAIK, it does not contain any secret trapdoors or special gotchas like the Obamatrade stuff does. It promotes open trade. Nevertheless, congress and the white house have repeatedly ignored or bypassed or attempted to subvert the provisions, where it suits them and their high-paid lobbyists.
This is the opposite of the Obamatrade problem - this was a open set of principles - free trade. The principles were agreed to in a treaty, which was ratified by the Congress. Logically, if congress now tries to renege, pass laws in violation of that treaty, then they have a simple choice - abandon the whole treaty or abandon the attempt to subvert. Play nice. Stop being the 800-lb gorilla.
The problem with the current trade attempts is not that - it's the opposite. The congress does not know what they are giving away, has not studied and debated it, may in fact cede the power to *make* rules to other bodies, may be giving away more that then think. This was never the case with NAFTA, nor with WTO rules.
There's nothing wrong with binding yourself long term to a contract or treaty, if you understand the terms and implications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mooo!
Also if you really think that NAFTA would just be fine-and-dandy if they enforced the other provisions, well that's the catch isn't it? Treaties like these always have these so-called "safeguards" but they NEVER get enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact, when I raised the whole issue of ISDS being an issue that everyone should be concerned with, he just laughed and said that nobody could tell the US what to do. If they were sued, their lawyers would win, and even if they somehow lost, they couldn't go against the will of the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
District of Criminals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]