Fast Track Bill Back On The... Fast Track After Senate Deal

from the trade-deal-moves-forward dept

This isn't a huge surprise, but after getting rejected on Tuesday, Senators went back into deal-making mode. And, after passing a bill to crack down on currency manipulation, enough Senators who voted no earlier in the week now voted yes to move the fast track ("trade promotion authority") bill forward to a floor debate. That debate should happen next week, and apparently there will be some attempts to add some amendments to improve the fast track bill, though it's unclear if any of those have a legitimate chance of getting in. In short, chances are the fast track bill will pass the Senate next week, meaning that the real question is whether there are enough votes in the House.

The whole thing still seems quite bizarre. You have House and Senate Republicans (the party that regularly insists that it believes in the Constitution as originally written) voting to give up their Constitutional authority to oversee international commercial under the Commerce Clause, and hand it to a President in the opposing party. And, yes, this is the same President that Congressional Republicans are trying to block on almost every other move, and whom they often insist ignores Congressional powers under the Constitution to use powers not granted to the Executive branch under the Constitution. Why would they do that? And, at the same time, most in the President's own party are against doing this.

Again, while I know that many who are opposing the TPP and TTIP are just against trade deals in general, I am generally in favor of good free trade deals. It's just that the TPP is not that. It's barely even a "trade" deal at all. And thus, it's quite bizarre to see the politics of how this has all played out.

Filed Under: congress, fast track, partisan politics, senate, tpa, trade, trade promotion authority

Senate Rejects Fast Track Bill For TPP Agreement: Back To The Drawing Board

from the good-to-see dept

In a somewhat significant procedural move, the Senate failed to move forward on debating "fast track authority" or "trade promotion authority" after the Senate failed to come up with enough votes. The move to hold a debate on the fast track bill needed 60 votes, but only got 52 (with 45 against). Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Senator Ron Wyden -- who had sponsored the fast track bill -- went against it as well, noting that he (and others) needed more promises on other issues before they'd move forward:

Democrats that are supportive of Obama’s trade efforts huddled on Tuesday afternoon to plot their strategy. After nearly an hour, led by Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the bloc of about 10 Democrats said McConnell has not offered them sufficient guarantees.

“The group is concerned about the lack of commitment to trade enforcement, which is specifically the customs bill,” Wyden told reporters after the meeting. “Until there is a path to get all four bills passed … we will, certainly most of us, will have to vote no.”

And thus, we have this weird situation, again, where it's basically Republicans pushing for giving up the Senate's Constitutional authority on trade agreements, and handing it to a Democratic President. Either way, today's vote came down to a bit of horse trading:

Democrats want McConnell to package the so-called fast-track Trade Promotion Authority legislation with three other pieces of legislation, including one that would help workers affected by the massive trade agreement and one to crack down on currency manipulation.

But McConnell is refusing to guarantee that TPA, Trade Adjustment Assistance, the African Growth and Opportunity Act and a customs enforcement bill, which includes the currency manipulation provisions, will all be passed as part of a deal to open debate on the trade bill.

The customs provision in particular is viewed as veto-bait for the White House, potentially complicating the trade package’s future if it is approved. The measure could force the administration to designate China as a currency manipulator, which the White House fears would spark a trade war with Beijing.

What happens next, should be interesting. There will likely be a lot more negotiating and some more horse trading, but it seems that Senator Orrin Hatch, who has been the driving force behind the fast track bill, is pretty angry with Wyden for the situation today:

Hatch, though, sounded pessimistic about another round of deal-making with Wyden. A visibility agitated Hatch told reporters that the bill had become a “mess,” adding that he was “through talking.”

“I’ll always be open, but we’ve just been jerked around here too much,” Hatch said. “I expect people to live their word just like I do.”

It still has a chance of things moving forward, but for the moment, the big push to get fast track through in order to allow the TPP agreement to be completed has had to hit the brakes.

Filed Under: fast track, orrin hatch, ron wyden, senate, tpa, tpp

Congress Finally Releases Fast Track Trade Bill, And It's A Mess

from the why-do-republicans-want-to-do-this? dept

For the past few months there have been rumors every few weeks that Congress was finally going to push out a "fast track" or "trade promotion authority" bill. As we've explained, these bills are Congress giving up their Constitutional right to regulate international trade, and handing the power over the USTR, a part of the executive branch. While some supporters of this argue that it actually gives Congress more power, by laying out the conditions of a trade deal it will approve, that's ridiculous. That might be true if fast track authority were granted prior to a deal being done, but with the TPP and TTIP pretty far along, it's clearly not true. Either way, despite massive opposition from the President's own party, an agreement has been reached between Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden and a trade promotion bill has been released.

Back in February, we presented a simple litmus test concerning whether or not any such effort would actually be reasonable on intellectual property issues: would the text of the bill concerning intellectual property be any different than the last fast track authority bill from 2002 (or an attempt to update it in 2014). Both of those bills had nearly verbatim text. And... as we feared, so does this new bill. Given just how much the internet has changed since 2002, it is simply inconceivable to suggest that the same intellectual property rules that made sense then would continue to make sense now. In other words, despite the involvement of Senator Wyden, it appears that little has been done here to make it clear to the USTR that bad IP rules in the TPP or TTIP agreement are unacceptable. That's a disappointment. Here are the key provisions on intellectual property. Note that they are basically all about enforcement (i.e., protectionism) rather than the free flow of information (which is what you'd expect a trade deal to be about).

providing strong protection for new and emerging technologies and new methods of transmitting and distributing products embodying intellectual property, including in a manner that facilitates legitimate digital trade;

preventing or eliminating discrimination with respect to matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance, use, and enforcement of intellectual property rights;

ensuring that standards of protection and enforcement keep pace with technological developments, and in particular ensuring that rightholders have the legal and technological means to control the use of their works through the Internet and other global communication media, and to prevent the unauthorized use of their works;

providing strong enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through accessible, expeditious, and effective civil, administrative, and criminal enforcement mechanisms; and

preventing or eliminating government involvement in the violation of intellectual property rights, including cyber theft and piracy;

These are basically word for word the same from 2002. In other words, despite over a decade of seeing how the USTR has used trade deals to browbeat other countries into bad intellectual property laws, this new trade promotion authority is saying "go ahead and continue doing just that, no matter what harm it may do to the internet and all of the economic growth it creates."

Unlike some who are totally against any trade deals, I believe there are ways in which increasing actual free trade can be helpful. I had held out hope that the new trade promotion agreement would be more reasonable than what we'd seen in the past. But just looking at the intellectual property section alone, and the fact that it has remained unchanged since the 2002 version -- despite over a decade of seeing how bad IP policy can hurt internet innovation and economic growth -- suggests that this TPA agreement continues the mistakes of the past, rather than fixes them. That's unfortunate.

And so, now comes a very, very weird fight in Congress. With nearly all Democrats opposed to this bill even including the surprise change in position by Senator Chuck Schumer, we'll have a situation where Congressional Republicans try and convince their colleagues to give President Obama more power, by removing the Constitutional authority from Congress, while Congressional Democrats push back against giving their own President that power. It's a really weird fight in oh so many ways.

Filed Under: chuck schumer, fast track, fast track authority, intellectual property, orrin hatch, ron wyden, tafta, trade, trade agreements, trade promotion, trade promotion authority, ttip, ttp, ustr

USTR Pushes Congress To Approve Trade Deals... But Threatens Reps With Criminal Prosecution If They Tell The Public What's In Them

from the transparency! dept

For years now, we've been trying to understand why the US Trade Rep (USTR) is so anti-transparency with its trade negotiations. It insists that everything it's negotiating be kept in near total secrecy until everything is settled, and the public can no longer give input to fix the problems in the agreement. It's a highly questionable stance. Whenever this criticism is put to the USTR directly, it responds by saying that it will listen to anyone who wants to come and talk to the USTR. But, as we've explained multiple times, "listening" is about information going into the USTR. "Transparency" is about information coming out of the USTR. They're not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

As the fight over new trade agreements gets louder and louder, a key stumbling block is having Congress approve so-called "fast track authority" or "Trade Promotion Authority," which basically means that Congress can't even jump in to try to fix the problems in whatever the USTR negotiates -- it can only give a straight "yes" or "no" vote on the entire package. For reasons that aren't entirely clear, Congressional Republicans are all for this, even though it means directly giving up Congress's Constitutional authority to a President that the Republicans appear to hate. Meanwhile, Democrats seem reasonably skeptical of these new trade deals.

So the White House and the USTR have been pushing a charm offensive on Congressional Democrats concerning these trade deals, but the charm offensive also comes with this rather startling statement: if you reveal what we're telling you, you may go to jail:

As the Obama administration gives House Democrats a hard sell on a major controversial trade pact this week, it will be doing so under severe conditions: Any member of Congress who shares information with the public from a Wednesday briefing could be prosecuted for a crime.

Yes, the USTR has declared that the briefing is entirely classified. Why? Mainly to keep the details secret from the American public. As Rep. Alan Grayson notes:

"It is part of a multi-year campaign of deception and destruction. Why do we classify information? It's to keep sensitive information out of the hands of foreign governments. In this case, foreign governments already have this information. They're the people the administration is negotiating with. The only purpose of classifying this information is to keep it from the American people."

The USTR's lame response to all of this is that any member of Congerss is allowed to come to its office and see the text of the negotiating documents. But that's misleading in the extreme. As we've discussed before, the USTR tells elected officials that they can't copy anything, take any notes, or even bring staff experts on trade agreements (or related issues)... even when those staffers have security clearance.

We pointed out this was a problem back in 2012 and it appears to be ongoing. The Huffington Post article above quotes Rep. Rosa DeLauro who appears to be having the same problem:

"Even now, when they are finally beginning to share details of the proposed deal with Members of Congress, they are denying us the ability to consult with our staff or discuss details of the agreement with experts. This flies in the face of how past negotiations have been conducted and does not help the Administration’s credibility. If the TPP would be as good for American jobs as they claim, there should be nothing to hide."

Rep. Lloyd Doggett also seems amazed that his staffers with security clearance are blocked from getting information about the TPP agreement:

"I tried to find out what level of classification applies," he said. "Can my top cleared staff read it? If he can hear about ISIS, is there something in here that prevents him from seeing these trade documents?"

It really does make you wonder, once again, just what is the USTR hiding here? There is simply no reason to keep these details secret -- except if you know that the American public won't approve of them.

Filed Under: classified, congress, fast track, secrecy, tafta, tpp, trade promotion authority, transparency, ttip, ustr

The White House Has Gone Full Doublespeak On Fast Track And The TPP

from the up-is-down,-black-is-white dept

Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Orrin Hatch are now in a stand-off over a bill that would put secretive trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement on the Fast Track to passage through Congress. The White House meanwhile, has intensified their propaganda campaign, going so far as to mislead the public about how trade deals—like the TPP and its counterpart, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)—will effect the Internet and users' rights. They are creating videos, writing several blog posts, and then this week, even sent out a letter from an "online small business owner" to everyone on the White House's massive email list, to further misinform the public about Fast Track.

In a blog post published this week, the White House flat out uses doublespeak to tout the benefits of the TPP, even going so far as to claim that without these new trade agreements, "there would be no rules protecting American invention, artistic creativity, and research". That is pure bogus, much like the other lies the White House has been recently saying about its trade policies. Let's look at the four main myths they have been saying to sell lawmakers and the public on Fast Track for the TPP.

Myth #1: TPP Is Good for the Internet

First, there are the claims that this agreement will create "stronger protections of a free and open Internet". As we know from previous leaks of the TPP's Intellectual Property chapter, the complete opposite is true. Most of all, the TPP's ISP liability provisions could create greater incentives for Internet and content providers to block and filter content, or even monitor their users in the name of copyright enforcement. What they believe are efforts toward protecting the future of the Internet are provisions they're advocating for in this and other secret agreements on the "free flow of information". In short, these are policies aimed at subverting data localization laws.

Such an obligation could be a good or a bad thing, depending on what kind of impact it could have on national censorship, or consumer protections for personal data. It's a complicated issue without an easy solution—which is exactly why this should not be decided through secretive trade negotiations. These "free flow of information" rules have likely been lobbied for by major tech companies, which do not want laws to restrict them on how they deal with users' data. It is dishonest to say that what these tech companies can do with people's data is good for all users and the Internet at large.

Myth #2: Fast Track Would Strengthen Congressional Oversight

The second, oft-repeated claim is that Fast Track would strengthen congressional oversight—which is again not true. The U.S. Trade Representative has made this claim throughout the past couple months, including at a Senate Finance Committee hearing in January when he said:

TPA puts Congress in the driver’s seat to define our negotiating objectives and strengthens Congressional oversight by requiring consultations and transparency throughout the negotiating process.

Maybe we could believe this if the White House had fought for Fast Track before delegates began negotiating the TPP and TTIP. Maybe it could also have been true if that bill had ensured that Congress members had easy access to the text and kept a close leash on the White House throughout the process to ensure that the negotiating objectives they had outline were in fact being met in the deal. However, we know from the past several years of TPP negotiations, that Congress has largely been shut out of the process. Many members of Congress have spoken out about the White House's strict rules that have made it exceedingly difficult to influence or even see the terms of these trade deals.

The only way Fast Track could really put "Congress in the driver's seat" over trade policy would be if it fully addressed the lack of congressional oversight over the TPP and TTIP thus far. Lawmakers should be able to hold unlimited debate over the policies being proposed in these deals, and if it comes to it, to amend their provisions. It would be meaningless if the new Fast Track bill enabled more congressional oversight, but if it did not apply to agreements that are ongoing or almost completed.

Myth #3: Small Online Businesses Would Benefit from Fast Track

Then the third misleading claim is that Fast Track would help small businesses. Their repetition of this has become louder amid increasing public awareness that the TPP has primarily been driven by major corporations. What may be good for established multinational companies could also benefit certain small online businesses as well. The White House says that tariffs are hindering small online businesses from selling their products abroad, but research has shown that the kinds of traditional trade barriers, like tariffs, that past trade agreements were negotiated to address are already close to non-existent. Therefore it is unclear what other kind of benefits online businesses would see from the TPP.

Even if there were some benefits, there are many more ways that the TPP could harm small Internet-based companies. The TPP's copyright provisions could lead to policies where ISPs would be forced to implement costly systems to oversee all users' activities and process each takedown notice they receive. They could also discourage investment in new innovative start-ups, even those that plan to "play by the rules", due to the risk that companies would have to sink significant resources into legal defenses against copyright holders, or face heavy deterrent penalties for infringement established by the TPP.

Myth #4: TPP and Other Secret Trade Deals Are a National Security Issue

The last, and most confounding of the White House's assertions is that the TPP and TTIP are an "integral part" of the United States' national security strategy, because its "global strategic interests are intimately linked with [its] broader economic interests." As we have seen with the U.S. government's expansive surveillance regime, "national security" is often invoked for policies even if they directly undermine our civil liberties. It is hard to argue with the administration whether the TPP and TTIP are in fact in the United States' economic or strategic interests, since only they are allowed to see the entire contents of these agreements. Either way, it seems like a huge stretch to say that we can trust the White House and major corporate representatives to determine, in secret, what is in fact good digital policy for the country and the world. We may be hearing this line more and more in the coming weeks as the White House becomes more desperate to legitimize the need for Fast Track to pass the TPP and TTIP.

Conclusion

The fact that the White House has resorted to distorting the truth about its trade policies is enough to demonstrate how little the administration values honesty and transparency in policy making, and how much the public stands to lose from these agreements negotiated in secret. The more they try and espouse the potential gains from Fast Track—while the trade agreements this legislation would advance remain secret—the more reason we ought to be skeptical. If the TPP is so great and if Fast Track would in fact enable more democratic oversight, why are the contents of either of them still not public?

Reposted from the Electronic Frontier Foundation Deeplinks blog

Filed Under: administration, copyright, fast track, fast track authority, intellectual property, internet freedom, tafta, tpp, trade, trade promotion authority, ttip, ustr, white house

Trade Agreements Should Protect An Open Internet, Not Kill It

from the fighting-for-the-future,-or-the-past? dept

For a few years now, we've been writing about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and how we're quite concerned by many aspects of it. In particular, we're quite concerned about the intellectual property provisions -- which leaks have shown are tremendously problematic -- as well as the corporate sovereignty provisions, which negotiators like to call "investor state dispute settlement" (ISDS) because it sounds so boring. Of course, the biggest concern of all is that these deals are negotiated in total secrecy, with the various negotiators refusing to reveal the agreed upon text until it's a done deal and the public is unable to comment on it or suggest changes and fixes.

In the fight over the TPP (and the other big trade agreement, with Europe, called the TTIP or TAFTA), an important side issue is over so-called "fast track" authority, or (more officially) "trade promotion authority." This is where Congress basically tells the USTR that it will only take a single "yes/no" vote on whatever the USTR comes back with, rather than delving into the details of the trade agreement and challenging specific aspects of it. In fact, there's an argument that, without fast track authority, the USTR can't really commit the US to anything. What's really odd is that, in a Republican-controlled Congress that seems to want to fight President Obama on just about anything that even has a whiff of the executive branch having more power, it's those Republicans in Congress who are pushing strongly for fast track authority -- effectively giving up their (Constitutionally-mandated) power to regulate international trade.

Either way, it is strongly expected that Congress will introduce some sort of Trade Promotion Authority bill in the coming days, even as the key Democrat involved in this issue, Senator Ron Wyden, has pushed back on hearings planned by Senator Orrin Hatch for later this week.

To try to justify giving up Congress's own power to the executive branch, defenders of trade promotion authority, such as Paul Ryan, claim that it's actually Congress "asserting its authority in the early stages of a trade negotiation." That's clearly bullshit, since TPP is in its final stages, after being negotiated for many years. The other claim is that because of the way trade promotion authority works, it involves a bill that tells the USTR what needs to be included in any agreement. Again, while that is used to make it look like it's Congress presenting its desires to the USTR, which has to follow it, that would only make sense if TPA was offered at the beginning -- not the end -- of the negotiations.

Even Paul Krugman, who was initially a supporter of the TPP eventually changed his tune. Most recently, in response to President Obama's latest call for trade promotion authority, Krugman referred to it as suspicious nonsense. He supports trade deals, but "strongly suspects" there's "bad stuff hidden in the fine print." Of course, that wouldn't be such a concern if the USTR actually released the drafts it's pitching, but that apparently will never happen.

And that brings us (finally) to the question of what will be in the eventual push for fast track authority, that is expected to come out any day now. Daniel Sepulveda, who is sort of the US's "ambassador to the internet," just gave a speech talking about how fast track can help protect the open internet. He notes, rightly, that it's important to "[preserve] the free flow of information, to protect the internet's potential as the world's engine for future growth." He further points out that "the increase in Internet use creates significant economic potential." But, oddly, he claims that fast track can somehow guarantee this -- when previous attempts at fast track have shown no such thing. Here's Sepulveda:

The Obama Administration is working to unlock the promise of e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open, promote competitive access for telecommunications suppliers, and set digital trade rules-of-the-road by negotiating new trade agreements. Trade Promotion Authority legislation and the pending trade agreements we expect Congress to consider over the coming months and years will provide that kind of protection. These agreements aim to ensure that the free flow of information and data are the default setting for nations. This will preserve the architecture that has empowered the Internet and global communications to fuel economic growth at home and abroad. It is in our interest, across parties and ideology, to ensure we move forward and approve TPA and the pending agreements for many reasons, but promoting the preservation and growth of global communications and the open Internet is one of the strongest.

I agree that preserving an open internet is important -- and I wish that our trade deals did exactly that, but they don't. In particular, the intellectual property sections of various trade agreements have not been focused on preserving an open internet, but on shutting it down. We've been asking for nearly a decade how protectionist policies aimed at propping up a legacy industry's obsolete business models is "promoting free trade." It seems like the opposite.

And, in fact, if you look at the version of the "fast track" legislation that was introduced in the last Congress, you'll notice that the section it has on intellectual property is almost entirely focused on ratcheting up enforcement and protection. It only talks about intellectual property enforcement, including "meeting enforcement obligations," and "providing strong protection for new and emerging technologies and new methods of transmitting and distributing products embodying intellectual property." It includes sections that are all about protectionism and enforcement, rather than "free trade."

Providing strong protection for new and emerging technologies and new methods of transmitting and distributing products embodying intellectual property, including in a manner that facilitates legitimate digital trade;

Preventing or eliminating discrimination with respect to matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance, use, and enforcement of intellectual property rights;

Ensuring that standards of protection and enforcement keep pace with technological developments, and in particular ensuring that rightholders have the legal and technological means to control the use of their works through the Internet and other global communication media, and to prevent the unauthorized use of their works;

Providing strong enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through accessible, expeditious, and effective civil, administrative, and criminal enforcement mechanisms.

In fact, if you look, these clauses are almost verbatim from the last time Congress granted trade promotion authority, back in 2002, with the 2002 Trade Act. Check out the section in that law about intellectual property and you may notice a rather striking similarity to what was in the last Congress's attempt, put together by Senator Orrin Hatch, who's leading the charge this time around as well:

Providing strong protection for new and emerging technologies and new methods of transmitting and distributing products embodying intellectual property;

Preventing or eliminating discrimination with respect to matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance, use, and enforcement of intellectual property rights;

Ensuring that standards of protection and enforcement keep pace with technological developments, and in particular ensuring that rightholders have the legal and technological means to control the use of their works through the Internet and other global communication media, and to prevent the unauthorized use of their works; and

Providing strong enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through accessible, expeditious, and effective civil, administrative, and criminal enforcement mechanisms;

Look familiar? Other than the inclusion of the phrase "including in a manner that facilitates legitimate digital trade," they are identical. And yet, think about just how much the world has changed since 2002 -- and how important we know the internet is, and how much we've learned about how intellectual property law can be widely abused to harm or break the open internet.

Since then, we've seen the DMCA used repeatedly to stifle free expression. We've seen Russia using copyright law to stifle political dissent. We've seen how plans to use copyright law to block access to certain sites enable an architecture of censorship. We've seen news publications seized and popular digital storage lockers shut down completely via copyright claims.

Given all that, it's difficult to see how the US can actually be serious about protecting an open and free internet, if it's going to continue to use trade agreements like the TPP -- to push for greater tools like those described above, that simply put the ability to censor the internet, and to take down innovative services, into trade agreements. If, when the eventual trade promotion authority bill comes out, it includes this same language all over again, you can be sure that the TPP is not about protecting an open internet, but rather about protecting a few legacy businesses, and enabling government to shut down and stop the open internet.

I'm a believer in free trade and open borders. I know that some are protesting agreements like the TPP because they don't like free trade itself, and think it's problematic. That's not my concern. My concern is that what's being done in the name of free trade, and in the name of an open internet, is anything but that. It's about protecting the past, not investing in and enabling the future. We all have our concerns about what's in the various sections of the TPP (which could be solved today if the USTR just released the damn documents), but our first hint of what's really going on here will be evident by how the "intellectual property" section of the expected TPA bill is written. If it's just repeating the same misleading lines from 2002, you can be sure that the TPP is just as big a problem as expected.

Filed Under: corporate sovereignty, daniel sepulveda, fast track, fast track authority, freedom of expression, intellectual property, open internet, orrin hatch, ron wyden, tpp, trade promotion authority

USTR Still Insists That 'Listening' Is 'Transparency' Even As It Keeps Details Completely Secret

from the buy-a-fucking-dictionary dept

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) office is a complete joke. For many years, we've been discussing how the office is one of the most secretive there is, despite negotiating agreements that impact every American. And for years, the USTR has responded with a series of flat out lies, while insisting that it's being transparent. As we've noted, the USTR is really about as transparent as pea soup, with an institutional focus on secrecy. The negotiating positions that it takes on various trade agreements are shrouded in secrecy. When other countries push to be more transparent, the USTR inevitably rejects those pleas. While lobbyists get full access to some of the documents (including the ability to log in and see the latest texts), members of Congress who want to see the details have to go to the USTR, aren't allowed to bring any staffers, and aren't allowed to make any copies or take any notes. And, it tries to actually make it difficult for most members of Congress to read the docs anyway.

The big lie from the USTR has long been that because it "listens" to anyone who wants to come in and talk, it's being transparent. Or it claims that because it (sorta) listens to Congress and Congress is "the people's representative" that it's being transparent. But, as we've explained over and over and over again, the USTR is confusing "listening" with "transparency." In the past, we've been fairly explicit about how the USTR is wrong about this:

• Listening: People ---- information -----> USTR
• Transparency: USTR --- information ----> The Public

But the USTR keeps trotting this one out. It's released a new, almost entirely bogus "fact sheet" on Transparency and the Obama Trade Agenda. Take a look at the "facts" and see which ones are actually about "transparency" and which ones are about pretending to listen:

The Administration is working to cast a wide net to draw in the views of the public and to share information at every step of the negotiating process. To that end, for the negotiations currently ongoing, the Administration has:

• Solicited public comments on negotiation aims, priorities and concerns, including through the Federal Register.
• Held public hearings inviting input on the negotiations.
• Organized first-of-a-kind stakeholder events where the negotiations are suspended so that a diverse group of stakeholders can meet with negotiators. These sessions are open to the public and provide a valuable opportunity for U.S. negotiators to hear and respond to critiques and suggestions.
• Shared information on the current status of negotiations through blog posts, trade policy updates, press releases, statements, conference calls with stakeholders and the press, and tweets.

That last one actually involves sharing some information, but always in a half-hearted and misleading way. It talks about the status of the negotiations, sure, but not about the actual text. And it's the actual text that matters. But in USTR-lala-land, we don't get to see the actual text until it's too late to change it. That's the whole point of the USTR seeking "fast track authority" from Congress, meaning that effectively what it hands in can't be changed at all. That allows the lobbyists to tinker with the details and change the language in dangerous ways, without giving anyone who understands the impact of these things to comment on it until it's too late.

The USTR insists that it can't "negotiate in public," but that's bullshit. Other international agreements frequently involve proposals and negotiating texts released to the public for comment. There is no good reason that the USTR can't do the same. The only real reason that's been given by the USTR is that actual transparency would lead to public opposition. And that's not a valid reason.

The USTR can fix this by changing to true transparency, but this argument has been going on for years, and instead of doing the right thing, it just issues more bogus "fact sheets" where it obfuscates reality by pretending to be transparent, while actually being anything but transparent.

Filed Under: fast track, listening, tafta, tpp, trade promotion authority, transparency, ustr

Now In Charge Of Congress, GOP Plans To Give Up Its Own Constitutional Powers To The Obama Administration

from the say-what-now? dept

As you've probably heard, the Republicans decisively took control over Congress in the election on Tuesday, and are now strategizing on exactly what plan they'll choose to try not to mess things up too badly by the time the 2016 elections come around. The Washington Post has a short segment on the "quick votes" the GOP is planning for January to show that rather than blocking everything, it can actually pass some stuff -- including "fast track" legislation on trade agreements:

With the 2016 presidential campaign already looming large, McConnell (Ky.) and Boehner (Ohio) are both eager to shed the party’s image as an unruly collection of obstructionists and far-right ideologues.

The remedy, they have decided: Act quickly to send President Obama bills with bipartisan support to fast-track international trade agreements, repeal an unpopular tax on medical devices and approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

We've talked about this "Fast Track" authority for years (it's also referred to as "Trade Promotion Authority"). The issue is that, under the Constitution, Congress and not the executive branch, has the sole power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations." The executive branch has always been able to negotiate agreements, but it's Congress that has the power to regulate. "Fast Track" authority or Trade Promotion Authority is effectively Congress handing that right over to the executive branch, by saying that the only thing it can do when brought a trade agreement is vote up or down on the whole thing, rather than actually look at the details of the agreement and send the USTR back to fix the problematic parts.

You can understand why the USTR and the administration want the fast track to go, because it means they can actually promise things during negotiations that are more difficult to promise without that power. But it does seem very, very odd that a Republican Congress that seems to constantly complain about too much power in the executive branch, seems to have no problem whatsoever abdicating its Constitutional powers to that very same executive branch on major trade agreements that could reshape regulations worldwide.

Part of the problem, of course, is that people have been told that this is about "free trade" agreements -- and Republicans claim to be in support of free trade. But that's wrong. The big agreements, like the TPP and TTIP/TAFTA are not about "free trade" for the most part. Most tariff barriers have been chipped away for years. These agreements are about regulations and locking in certain regulations to limit the sovereignty of various nations to pass their own regulations. It's just protectionism in a different colored coat, dressed up to look like free trade -- complete with a dollop of extra sovereignty for corporations. Thus, it seems very odd that a Republican controlled Congress -- one that insists it's all about the Constitution -- has decided that it's first order of business is to give up one of Congress' main constitutional powers to an administration controlled by the opposing party.

Filed Under: congress, fast track, fast track authority, gop, republicans, tafta, tpp, trade agreements, trade promotion authority, ttip

Many In Congress Opposed To Fast Track Authority: An Obsolete Concept For An Obsolete Trade Negotiation

from the get-modern dept

We just noted how Congress had introduced a bill to give up its own Constitutional powers, abdicating them to the administration and the USTR to give it the full power to commit the US to massive trade agreements like the TPP and TAFTA/TTIP, and blocking Congress' ability to oversee the process and make sure all interests are represented. Instead, if fast track authority is granted, Congress will only be able to give a "yes or no" vote on the agreements, and once the USTR comes back with an agreement, the pressure will be immense to vote yes. Thankfully, many in Congress are already signalling that they're not at all comfortable with abdicating their responsibilities. On the House side, Reps. Rosa Delauro, Louise Slaughter and George Miller put out a statement decrying the inevitable end result of this process, specifically highlighting the fact that these modern trade agreements cover a hell of a lot more than "trade."

Fast Track procedures would allow the President to sign a potential Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and other free trade agreements before Congress votes to approve them even though the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority over trade. The process would also guarantee the pacts could come to the floor without giving Members of Congress the opportunity to amend them despite the fact these agreements will include binding obligations that touch upon a wide swath of non-trade policy matters under the authority of Congress.

“For too long, bad trade deals have allowed corporations to ship good American jobs overseas, and wages, benefits, workplace protections and quality of life have all declined as a result,” DeLauro, Miller and Slaughter said in a joint statement. “That is why there is strong bipartisan opposition to enabling the Executive Branch to ram through far-reaching, secretly negotiated trade deals like the TPP that extend well beyond traditional trade matters.

As their statement also notes, "Our constituents did not send us to Washington to ship their jobs overseas, and Congress will not be a rubber stamp for another flawed trade deal that will hang the middle class out to dry."

They're not the only ones in the House to be concerned. A number of other powerful House members are not at all happy about the proposal and looking to kill it or change it -- including Nancy Pelosi. Then there's also Rep. Sander Levin who has spoken out against fast track. As that article notes, without Levin's support, Fast Track may be in trouble.

An even stronger condemnation of the attempt comes from the Senate side, where Rep. Levin's younger brother, Senator Carl Levin debunks the talking point we've already been hearing from copyright maximalist lobbyists, that "fast track authority has been used for decades and it's no big deal." As Levin points out, in the past, fast track was used for very different kinds of trade agreements. Narrow ones that were actually about trade, not the kind of monstrosity like the TPP which has little to do with trade, and plenty to do with changing laws around the globe.

The 2002 TPA became utilized mostly in negotiating single nation trade agreements affecting a relatively small portion of our economy. What the U.S is now engaged in is negotiating major multi-party agreements, including with 11 Pacific nations and with the entire European Union, affecting a huge percentage of the U.S. and the global economy.

Levin further points out that without real transparency, any fast track authority should be a nonstarter:

USTR must make available to all Members of Congress and all staff with the necessary security clearance the text of the negotiations, including the proposals of our trading partners. We must also have a much more effective stakeholder advisory committee process than we do today so that the sectoral and functional advisory committees are representative of all industry, labor, agricultural, or services interests (including small business interests) in the sector or functional areas concerned. These private sector advisory committees must have access to the negotiating text. Finally, a new TPA will require USTR to publicly release summaries of its negotiating proposals and to provide opportunities for public comment.

As we noted in our original post, not a single Democrat was willing to co-sponsor the House version of the bill that their own President wants. And reports are suggesting that this may scuttle the whole thing, as Republicans begin to wonder why they're out there not only helping President Obama against his own party, but relinquishing Congress's own Constitutional authority in the process. It's good to see a large number of folks in Congress suddenly wondering why they should be giving up their oversight over international trade on an agreement so big.

Filed Under: carl levin, congress, fast track, fast track authority, george miller, louise slaughter, nancy pelosi, rosa delauro, sander levin, tpp, trade promotion authority, ustr

President Obama Asks Congress To Give Up Its Oversight On Secret TPP Agreement

from the that's-not-a-good-thing dept

We've talked a few times about how the USTR and the administration are asking Congress for "trade promotion authority," which would effectively let it bypass Congressional oversight of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. In fact, in many ways the USTR has been acting as if it already has this. The specifics of "trade promotion authority" or "fast track authority" are a bit down in the weeds, but the short version is that it's the administration asking Congress to completely abdicate its authority and mandate in overseeing international trade agreements. Basically, it removes the ability of Congress to seek any fixes or amendments to a trade agreement -- only allowing them to give a yes or no vote.

This might not be such a big deal if the TPP wasn't negotiated in near total secrecy. We've been told that a final agreement is getting close, but no official text has been released at all. What we know of the IP section is one draft that leaked out from well over a year ago. And, now, we're going to get a product that will be released to the public with little time for debate and no way to make changes should the public point out how ridiculous and dangerous it is.

And, of course, President Obama is insisting it's necessary to undermine the authority of Congress with a secret agreement that will have tremendous impact on Americans... just because he wants it. He announced to "the President’s Export Council" that "We're going to need Trade Promotion Authority." Let's be clear: the only reason the administration "needs" TPA is so that it can ram through the agreement without letting Congress do its oversight job. Trade Promotion Authority offers no benefit to the public at all. All it does is make sure that the USTR has less oversight and fewer limitations on selling out the public for a few big special interests.

The "Export Council" which is basically made up of leaders of those big special interests who are looking for protectionist (not "free trade") policies that help their bottom line, but harm the American public, made an even more ridiculous statement:

“We believe that new TPA legislation is critical to America’s trade leadership in the world,” the group said in one of eight letters to Obama it approved at the meeting.

Did you get that? They're claiming that if we actually let Congress do its Constitutionally-mandated job that somehow undermines America's "trade leadership?" Does anyone take this even remotely seriously? Of course, the problem is that very few are paying attention to this. "Trade Promotion Authority" sounds boring and if some big business leaders claims it's necessary, Congress will probably go with it -- even though it subverts their own powers.

If the USTR had actually been transparent, had released negotiating texts so that the public could give feedback, and that feedback was reflected in the eventual agreements, then maybe you could see how trade promotion authority might make sense. But when you have a secret agreement, driven in large part by industry lobbyists, which the public still hasn't been allowed to see, how could anyone possibly have a legitimate reason for suggesting that Congress abdicate its oversight role?

Filed Under: congress, fast track, international trade, tpp, trade promotion authority, ustr