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

USTR Claims 1,200 Meetings With Congress Just As Good As Actual Transparency

from the politicians:-the-new-common-man dept

USTR Michael Froman is trying to push the illusion that the TPP negotiations are transparent. In the past, various USTR spokespeople have made similar assertions, one of which is claiming that Congress, being so-called "representatives" of the public, are a perfectly suitable proxy for actual transparency. This ignores the fact that, while Congress may be able to view the TPP documents, it can't actually make copies or take notes or even pass it along to staffers who may have more expertise to offer -- to say nothing of the public all the way at the end of the food chain.

Of course, key special interest groups and key stakeholders have full access through a login to the USTR website, which allows them to view the documents at any time (and presumably take notes, disseminate, etc.), rather than be limited to asking the USTR for permission to view a trade agreement--one that not only affects the US and the US public, but several other countries around the world. Businesses that stand to benefit from the agreement have better access to both the documents and our representatives, and yet, the USTR continues to protest that it's open and transparent.

Here's the latest "see how open we are" statement from USTR Froman, the same guy who once touted the transparency of the trade negotiations from the comfort of a Hollywood studio.

“As we pursue this agenda, we will continue to consult with Congress and seek input from a wide range of advisors, stakeholders and the public. We have held over 1,200 meetings with Congress about TPP alone – and that doesn’t include the meetings we’ve had on T-TIP, TPA, AGOA or other trade initiatives,” he said. “Our Congressional partners preview our proposals and give us critical feedback every step of the way. We also ensure that any Member of Congress can review the negotiating text and has the opportunity to receive detailed briefings by our negotiators.”

Once again, the USTR is claiming secrecy-shrouded "meetings" with Congress to be synonymous with "seeking input from… the public." This isn't even remotely the same thing. Members of Congress aren't free to disseminate the TPP documents or take notes, which ensures nothing substantial will be passed on to the public. Froman's statement takes the public for idiots (something the USTR has done before), expecting them to believe their representatives will hear their voices over the crosstalk of legacy industries and special interest groups.

And the public still has no access, outside of leaked documents. Looking beyond the US-centric view, the stakeholders and public in other countries aren't getting the same level of "transparency." Sure, the USTR may be wearing down the local pols with incessant "meetings," but there's little to indicate there's been as many meetings with foreign officials. There's nearly 40% of the world's GDP at stake here (according to the USTR's numbers) and yet, only a very minute percentage of the world itself has any access to the TPP's documents and negotiations.

As can be expected, Froman listed IP as the top priority for worldwide trade agreements.

“The United States is an innovative economy, and the Obama Administration is committed to protecting intellectual property (IP), which is vital to promoting and encouraging innovation and creativity,” he said. “Millions of American jobs rely on IP, and we will continue to use our trade agenda in 2014 to defend the IP rights of our creators and innovators while supporting the freedom of the Internet, encouraging the free flow of information across the digital world, and ensuring access to medicines, particularly by the poor in less developed economies.”

But that's all a lie, especially the last part about "ensuring access to medicines." The TPP is fighting cheap medicine on several fronts. It contains provisions that make it harder for local companies to produce generics by resetting the patent clock when the drug is introduced to foreign markets. The USTR has also directly told other countries that cheap, affordable medical care/products "fail to recognize the value" of overpriced US offerings.

The USTR isn't interested in the free flow of information related to the TPP negotiations, so it's highly unlikely it has any interest in "encouraging the free flow of information across the digital world." The phrase "supporting the freedom of the internet" doesn't sound right coming from an entity that was one of ACTA's biggest supporters, and one backed by some of SOPA's biggest supporters.

It's a colossal joke, this supposed "transparency" of the USTR and TPP. It smells of old money being carried through revolving doors. When it comes to super-secret negotiations involving legacy players and massive corporations, Congress is hardly a reliable stand-in for the US public.

Filed Under: fast track authority, michael forman, tafta, tpp, trade promotion authority, transparency, ttip, ustr

USTR Refuses To Show Up For Senate Hearing On Fast Track

from the how's-that-for-working-closely-with-congress dept

One of the biggest concerns that we've heard from Congress about the USTR's desire for fast track authority is the fact that the USTR has been positively dismissive of Congressional attempts at transparency. While the USTR pretends that getting fast track actually means great cooperation with Congress, apparently USTR boss Michael Froman decided to bend over and tell Congress to kiss his ass by not even bothering to show up for the Senate's hearing on fast track authority.

Several committee members said they were puzzled and disappointed that USTR Michael Froman passed on an opportunity to convince some skeptical lawmakers they need to establish Fast Track authority for President Barack Obama’s priority Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

“I wish they were here,” said Portman, a member of the committee and a former US trade representative under President George W. Bush.  “It’s important.”

This shows the kind of disdain that the USTR appears to hold Congress in. Congress remains a mere nuisance in the USTR's ongoing efforts to put forth the best agreement possible for a bunch of crony friends who will soon be offering USTR staffers new jobs as lobbyists.

If the USTR can't even bother to show up to argue for fast track, while arguing how important it is, perhaps it suggests that Congress really ought not to give the USTR that kind of power. So far, the USTR has not been transparent. It has directly lied, repeatedly, to the American public about what it's trying to do, and when given the chance to explain itself to the Senate committee in charge of the very bill it wants to give it more power over the TPP and TTIP/TAFTA, it blows it off.

Filed Under: congress, fast track authority, international trade, michael froman, oversight, senate, tpp, trade promotion authority

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

Does The Fast Track Authority Bill Guarantee That Corporate Sovereignty Will Be One-Sided And Unfair?

from the important-questions dept

Yesterday, Mike reported on the introduction of the "fast track authority" bill in the Senate, and pointed out some of its most troubling aspects. But it's a long document -- over 100 pages -- and hidden away within it are some other areas that raise important questions. Take, for example, Section 8, which concerns sovereignty:

No provision of any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b), nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States, any State of the United States, or any locality of the United States shall have effect.

Writing on the International Economic Law and Policy Blog, Simon Lester, a trade-policy analyst at the Cato Institute, asks:

Is this an assertion that no provision will be included in a trade agreement if such provision conflicts with U.S. law? Or does it mean that if there is a provision in a trade agreement that conflicts with U.S. law, that provision has no effect? Or something else entirely?

In the same section of the bill, there's another passage whose meaning is by no means clear:

Reports, including findings and recommendations, issued by dispute settlement panels convened pursuant to any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b) shall have no binding effect on the law of the United States, the Government of the United States, or the law or government of any State or locality of the United States.

Again, does that mean the rulings of corporate sovereignty (ISDS) tribunals won't be enforceable in the US, or simply that they don't create legal precedents? It's a crucially-important point, because the terms of this fast track authority will apply not only to TPP, but also to TAFTA/TTIP. And there, the European Commission has been making the following argument about the necessity of including ISDS in the transatlantic agreement (as reported by Australia's Inside Story):

The problem with scrapping ISDSs, according to the Commission, is that the US legal system is not set up to deal with international investment agreements. "Quite simply, TTIP cannot be enforced in US domestic courts," [European Commission spokesperson] Clancy says. "So, this is about ensuring [that] investors have the right to a certain amount of protection."

If the fast track authority clause quoted above does, indeed, undercut the entire ISDS mechanism, then foreign investors would be unable to enforce TTIP's investment measures according to the European Commission's analysis. However, assuming that's not the meaning of the bill, there's another problem. Among the "principal trade objectives" listed at the start of in the fast track authority bill, is "foreign investment", where we read:

Recognizing that United States law on the whole provides a high level of protection for investment, consistent with or greater than the level required by international law, the principal negotiating objectives of the United States regarding foreign investment are to reduce or eliminate artificial or trade distorting barriers to foreign investment, while ensuring that foreign investors in the United States are not accorded greater substantive rights with respect to investment protections than United States investors in the United States, and to secure for investors important rights comparable to those that would be available under United States legal principles and practice

It's interesting to note that the bill explicitly recognizes that US law provides "a high level of protection for investment", which naturally calls into question the supposed "need" for any extra corporate sovereignty in the form of ISDS. But more importantly, the fast track authority bill states that trade agreements must ensure that:

foreign investors in the United States are not accorded greater substantive rights with respect to investment

And yet that is precisely what ISDS in TAFTA/TTIP or TPP would do: in addition to the use of domestic courts in the US, foreign investors would have the option to take the US to independent corporate sovereignty tribunals. However, that would not possible for US investors in the US, since ISDS only applies to foreign investment.

So we are left with two possibilities. Either the fast track authority aims to nullify the ISDS chapter in TPP and TAFTA/TTIP by rendering tribunal rulings impossible to enforce, or it will allow foreign investors to use ISDS tribunals to obtain enforceable decisions, in which case they will have greater substantive rights than US investors. Either way, one side of the negotiations is going to get a really bad deal from the inclusion of corporate sovereignty provisions. That's yet another powerful reason to drop them entirely from both TPP and TAFTA/TTIP.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: corporate sovereignty, fast track authority, investor state dispute settlement, isds, tafta, tpp, trade promotion authority, ttip

The Lies The USTR Is Spreading About Fast Track Authority To Push TPP Through Congress

from the don't-buy-it dept

With the introduction of fast track authority (also known as "trade promotion authority") in Congress, by which Congress abdicates its constitutionally-granted sole power to regulate foreign commerce, the USTR (which gains that power) is out in force, spreading all sorts of lies about what this means. It's not exactly encouraging when the organization that has been hiding all the details of the TPP agreement for years is now trying to push it forward by directly lying to the American public. It's almost as if the USTR can't be honest or people might realize that it's spent the last few years pushing forward on an agreement designed to prop up old legacy businesses at the expense of the public and new innovators.

The USTR's statement on the fast track proposal is full of lies, half-truths and misleading statements. Let's look at a few.

TPA does not provide new power to the Executive Branch.

Hell yes, it does. Trade Promotion Authority gives the power of regulating foreign commerce directly to the USTR, rather than Congress. It allows the USTR to negotiate a "final" agreement with other countries, which Congress cannot seek to change, amend or fix. Instead, Congress can only give a simple "yes or no" vote on what the USTR comes back with. Without TPA, the USTR actually needs to engage Congress, and win its support and approval on everything within the agreement. That gives Congress -- which is supposed to represent the public -- a chance to make sure that (as the USTR has shown a proclivity to do) the agreement is not filled with ridiculous "gifts" for cronies and friends at the expense of the public and disruptive innovation.

TPA is a legislative procedure, written by Congress, through which Congress defines U.S. negotiating objectives and spells out a detailed oversight and consultation process for during trade negotiations.

If TPA didn't tie Congress' own hands, the USTR might have a point here. But it's not true. While the TPA bill does officially "define" the negotiating objectives, those objectives listed in the current bill are basically the USTR's own list of what it's working on, reprinted by friends in Congress. And, honestly, how is it possible that it "spells out detailed oversight," when what the bill really does is make sure that the USTR can give Congress whatever it comes up with and say "take it or leave it"? Without TPA, the USTR actually has to go convince Congress that what it's been proposing (secretly and with no public review) is actually in the public interest.

Under TPA, Congress retains the authority to review and decide whether any proposed U.S. trade agreement will be implemented.

Misleading at best. Insulting to anyone with at least half a brain. Congress has significantly less authority under TPA to review and decide any trade agreement. That's because without TPA, Congress can review and question different aspects, or introduce amendments and fixes to all the stuff that the USTR screwed up. With TPA, Congress can only give an up or down vote on the entire package. That means, as long as the USTR includes enough "pork" to outweigh the crap for the majority of Congress, it can get through a ton of dangerous proposals -- like those we've already seen in the still officially "secret" intellectual property chapter.

TPA ENSURES TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN TRADE

TPA bills establish consultation and notification requirements for the President to follow throughout the trade agreement negotiation process – ensuring that Congress, stakeholders and the public are closely involved before, during and after the conclusion of trade agreement negotiations.

It's tough to read this and not laugh. This is an out and out lie. And it's a direct insult on the public. Remember, the TPP negotiations have been going on for years, and we still don't officially know what's in the TPP, other than what's been leaked. The idea that the public is "closely involved" is an insult. The public is not involved at all, entirely by the choice of the USTR, which has chosen to keep them out. As for Congress? They're also mostly in the dark. Yes, elected officials can go see the negotiating text, but they have to go to the USTR's offices, and they're not allowed to bring any staffers, make any copies or take any notes.

The USTR keeps pretending that because it will "meet with anyone who asks" that it's being transparent. But transparency is not about listening to whoever knocks on your door. It's about the other direction: it's about providing information out to the public -- something that the USTR has absolutely refused to do. The TPA does absolutely nothing to increase transparency, and actually gives the USTR fewer incentives to be transparent because now it knows there's no real oversight any more.

The USTR is flat out lying here, and it's a disgrace.

In addition to our congressionally mandated committees of industry and public sector advisers , the United States consults with all interested stakeholders at each trade agreement negotiating round and in between. We do this to share information and get views that make the negotiated product better. For TPP, these stakeholders have included representatives from academia, labor unions, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations. Under TPA, this activity would continue and be strengthened.

Misleading again. Yes, the USTR "shares" information, but only with a very small list of advisors -- who almost exclusively come from old legacy businesses. Everyone else? The USTR's response is to give them the middle finger. The claim about consulting with "interested stakeholders" at each round is also misleading. As we've covered in the past, at many (though not all) of the negotiating rounds, there would be an hour or two where "stakeholders" would have the opportunity to sit at a table and hope negotiators came to talk to them. Sometimes this would be done far away and at times when negotiators had better things to do -- like eat lunch. Sometimes stakeholders were allowed to give presentations, but with no guarantee that any negotiators would attend.

As for using those meetings to "share information" -- that's again highly misleading. Again, the USTR has been negotiating the TPP for years and still has not released any information at all on what's in it. What we know is what's been leaked out, and that little that's been leaked shows exactly why the USTR fears transparency and fears the public: because they're crafting an agreement designed to protect a few corporate interests at the expense of just about everyone else.

An honest an forthright USTR wouldn't fear the public, and it wouldn't insult and lie to the public as is happening here. The USTR is trying to pull a fast one over on the American public. It's negotiating an agreement in secret, pretending that it's being transparent, and then encouraging Congress to give up its right to review the agreement (without even seeing it), with insulting promises that by doing so, that will create more transparency.

Filed Under: congress, fast track authority, lies, tpa, tpp, trade promotion authority, transparency, ustr

Congress Introduce Bi-Partisan Bill To Abdicate Its Own Role And Screw Over American Public All At Once

from the shameful dept

We knew this was happening sooner or later, but Senate Finance chair Max Baucus, along with ranking member Orrin Hatch, have introduced the "fast track authority" bill in the Senate. Over in the House, the same basic bill has been introduced by Rep. Dave Camp. There had been rumors that the introduction of the bill would be delayed because not a single House Democrat would co-sponsor the bill, but apparently the existing bill supporters decided not to wait. Fast track authority or "trade promotion authority" is a very dangerous concept. It is basically Congress completely abdicating its Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, which grants Congress the sole power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations."

Instead, what fast track authority means is that Congress is saying, "that's okay, you guys in the administration can handle that." Basically, it's Congress flat out telling the White House and the USTR that it, and not the Congress, can come up with trade agreements with foreign powers, and Congress will tie its own hands in being able to challenge or review the various provisions. Instead, it will limit Congress entirely to an up or down vote on the entire trade agreement. And, in this case, the fast track authority will be used to approve the TPP (and likely TAFTA/TTIP after that). These are trade agreements that, as we've already discussed, are designed to help certain legacy industries at the expense of innovation and the public. Specifically, this would grant the administration four years of "fast track authority" with an easy three year extension after that.

The most ridiculous part is that the sponsors of the bill that will give up Congress' own powers are claiming that it does the opposite:

TPA-2014 also provides greater transparency and gives Congress greater oversight of the Administration’s trade negotiations.

Uh, no. It does the exact opposite. It takes away Congress' Constitutional powers to regulate commerce with other nations, providing less oversight for trade negotiations and guaranteeing even less transparency than the almost none that exists today. The sponsors of the bill are pretending that the details in the 107 page bill "instruct" the USTR how to properly negotiate things like the TPP, but it's basically just repeating the USTR's existing wishlist. Included are, of course, a section on the importance of "high standards of intellectual property protection" as well as support for dangerous corporate sovereignty tribunals, commonly referred to as "investor state dispute settlement" plans.

While this bill is moderately bipartisan in the sponsorship (with Senator Baucus selling out the majority of his party who is opposed to it), it's the Republicans who are the driving force behind this. And that makes no sense at all. This is the same Republican party who shut down the entire federal government to block the president's healthcare proposal, and has spent years attacking anything that even has the mild stench of the executive branch taking on a role that goes beyond what the Constitution allows. And yet here they are gleefully handing over the Constitutionally-given reins for regulating foreign commerce... to the president they hate? How does that make any sense at all?

Filed Under: congress, dave camp, fast track authority, max baucus, orrin hatch, tafta, tpp, trade promotion authority, ttip, ustr

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.

"And that is the reason why we are still optimistic that we can reach a successful conclusion of the TPP discussion this year."

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."

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.

Filed Under: congress, fast track authority, jack lew, steny hoyer, tpp, trade promotion authority, ustr

Congress May Not Be So Eager To Simply Hand Over Its Own Authority To The Obama Administration To Approve TPP

from the a-good-sign dept

We have all sorts of concerns about the TPP Agreement (Trans Pacific Parntership), but as we've discussed (both recently and in the past), a huge concern is over "trade promotion authority" or "fast track authority," in which Congress completely abdicates its Constitutional role "to regulate commerce with foreign nations." Basically, this power allows the USTR, which is a part of the executive branch, to get Congress to more or less give the USTR the "power" to finalize the trade agreement. Without it, Congress can -- as it should -- debate the different parts of the TPP agreement, and push back on the (many) problematic ones. Yet, if Congress gives up that power, without even seeing the full agreement (!?!?), then all Congress can do is a simple yes or no vote -- and there will be so many goodies in there that it will be difficult for them to reject the entire agreement.

The USTR and President Obama have been talking about the importance of getting this fast track authority from Congress for years -- but nothing has really come of it, nor has there been a direct public request. That suggests the administration knows it doesn't have the votes. In the past couple of months, the lobbying effort for getting fast track authority has ramped up a lot. While I still fear that Congress will cave on this, in the past few days, a group of 22 House Republicans and a (somewhat shocking) group of 151 House Democrats have sent separate letters to the White House, saying that they're opposed to granting fast track authority. Basically, it appears that Congress might actually be standing up for itself (shocking) on this issue, rather than just caving. That's nearly, though not quite, half of the House. It's not enough yet, but it does show that this isn't going to be easy (which again explains why there's been no real direct request yet).

The Republican letter focuses on the fact that Congress is supposed to (as per the Constitution) manage the nation's trade policy -- not the executive branch. The Democrats' letter calls into question the lack of consultation with Congress during this process (directly contradicting the USTR's own bogus claims of "working with Congress." The letter doesn't hold back on criticizing the White House, despite being from the same party:

For some time, members of Congress have urged your administration to engage in broader and deeper consultations with members of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the numerous issues being negotiated. Many have raised concerns relating to reports about the agreement’s proposed content. While your Administration’s goal was to sign a TPP FTA at the October 2013 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, we believe that to date the process has failed to provide adequate consultation with Congress.

Such opportunity for input from Congress is critical as the TPP FTA will include binding obligations that touch upon a wide swath of policy matters under the authority of Congress.

It later notes that fast track authority "is simply not appropriate for 21st Century agreements."

A NY Times story about the letters notes that there's a lot of anger that the USTR has blocked Congressional staffers from even being able to take part in the negotiations or the discussions -- something we've discussed over the past couple years.

The amazing thing here is that this mess that the USTR and President Obama are in right now over TPP was easily avoidable. Rather than negotiating in secret, and only sharing drafts with a select group of deep industry insiders, they easily could have and should have opened the discussion up publicly. The USTR should have released its own negotiating drafts from the very beginning, so that the public and Congress could weigh in while the process was ongoing. That way, there would be no surprises and no concerns. Instead, they kept the public and Congress out of it entirely -- putting extra special precautions against the public or Congress from finding out what was going on, so that we know the final product will have massive problems. And now they want Congress to just say "Sure, we trust you got it right"? Really? The USTR screwed this one up badly, and it's good to see Congress pushing back on this blatant attempt to usurp Congress' own powers.

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