Senate Hands a Victory to Obama on Trade Pact(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Senate Hands a Victory to Obama on Trade Pact
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us/politics/senate-vote-on-trade-bill.html
11 comments
TPP, Trans-Atlantic and TiSA are the trifecta and the BRICS are excluded out of these for a good reason. Even though there are firm Geo-Strategic grounds for these agreements, they are most likely not in the side of the Worker and likely cement the power of Elite in US and partner countries.
That's generally a true statement about anything that could foreseeably be good for the US economy. What's good for the economy is good for investors, and, apart from (vast numbers of) state employees with defined benefit pension plans managed by huge investment firms, investors aren't workers.
Why can't such agreements be made mandatory public? All these backroom discussions of far reaching proposals like Internet censorship are simply disgusting.
To be fair, any FTA (including the TPP) will be made public for a minimum of 4 months before Congress can vote on it (although with TPA they won't be allowed to offer amendments to it).
In reality, almost all legislation is written behind closed doors today (a public Git-for-Law would be a wonderful project), and is then sponsored by a member of Congress and goes (usually) to Committee.
Non-trade agreements with foreign powers are also negotiated "behind closed doors", because the negotiations themselves tend to be quite sensitive, and the negotiating positions of each country are also considered highly sensitive.
The real issue is probably that the Trade Advisory Committees are not required by law to be balanced between corporate interests and public advocacy groups (there are multiple representatives from such groups, although it's not currently well balanced).
In reality, almost all legislation is written behind closed doors today (a public Git-for-Law would be a wonderful project), and is then sponsored by a member of Congress and goes (usually) to Committee.
Non-trade agreements with foreign powers are also negotiated "behind closed doors", because the negotiations themselves tend to be quite sensitive, and the negotiating positions of each country are also considered highly sensitive.
The real issue is probably that the Trade Advisory Committees are not required by law to be balanced between corporate interests and public advocacy groups (there are multiple representatives from such groups, although it's not currently well balanced).
Do you have a source for that? My quick look at wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)
The procedure section shows Congress to have the ability to pass it to committees for at most 45 days and then they have at most 15 days after that to vote on it.
That seems to imply that it would be public for a maximum of 2 months, but I don't know much about this area.
The procedure section shows Congress to have the ability to pass it to committees for at most 45 days and then they have at most 15 days after that to vote on it.
That seems to imply that it would be public for a maximum of 2 months, but I don't know much about this area.
It's not spelled out in any sentence where you'll see "must be public for 4 months" in a single line, and I can see how that wording is confusing, however, the basic timeline is:
# Executive Actions - Negotiation 1. 90 day notification to begin negotiations 2. Negotiations begin 3. Negotiations conclude 4. 180 day notification prior to signing agreement 5. 90 day notification of intention to sign agreement 6. 60 days prior to signing, release of agreement text (first 2 months) 7. 30 days after notification of intention to sign, submission of Advisory Committee Reports 8. Agreement signed (not law yet)
# Reporting and Mock Markup 9. 60 days after agreement is signed, list of required changes in law due 10. 105 days after agreement is signed, USITC report due 11. Mock markups (no time schedule) 12. 30 days prior to implementing legislation, final text submitted (3rd month)
# Congressional Consideration and Implementation 13. Implementing bill introduced in House and Senate (no timeline) 14. Within 45 days, House Ways and Means must report bill 15. Within 15 days, House must vote on bill 16. Within 15 days, Senate Finance Committee must report bill 17. Within 15 days, Senate must vote on bill 18. Bill signed into public law (no timeline) 19. President implements bill by proclamation (no deadline)
So the Bill can spend a MAXIMUM of 90 days in the House and Senate; however, prior to even getting there, the text of the bill must have been public for a MINIMUM of 90 days (which is like 4-5 months in Congress time).
So even at hyper speed, the text would be public for 3 months, and in reality at least 4 months. More likely, the text will be public for 6-8 months before it is passed.
Source: Congressional Research Service (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf)
# Executive Actions - Negotiation 1. 90 day notification to begin negotiations 2. Negotiations begin 3. Negotiations conclude 4. 180 day notification prior to signing agreement 5. 90 day notification of intention to sign agreement 6. 60 days prior to signing, release of agreement text (first 2 months) 7. 30 days after notification of intention to sign, submission of Advisory Committee Reports 8. Agreement signed (not law yet)
# Reporting and Mock Markup 9. 60 days after agreement is signed, list of required changes in law due 10. 105 days after agreement is signed, USITC report due 11. Mock markups (no time schedule) 12. 30 days prior to implementing legislation, final text submitted (3rd month)
# Congressional Consideration and Implementation 13. Implementing bill introduced in House and Senate (no timeline) 14. Within 45 days, House Ways and Means must report bill 15. Within 15 days, House must vote on bill 16. Within 15 days, Senate Finance Committee must report bill 17. Within 15 days, Senate must vote on bill 18. Bill signed into public law (no timeline) 19. President implements bill by proclamation (no deadline)
So the Bill can spend a MAXIMUM of 90 days in the House and Senate; however, prior to even getting there, the text of the bill must have been public for a MINIMUM of 90 days (which is like 4-5 months in Congress time).
So even at hyper speed, the text would be public for 3 months, and in reality at least 4 months. More likely, the text will be public for 6-8 months before it is passed.
Source: Congressional Research Service (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf)
That article describes previous grants of trade promotion authority, while this grant of authority, by all reports, will require more stringent and lengthier consultation and public notice requirements.
Edit: Sec. 6 contains the public notice requirements: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/995...
Edit: Sec. 6 contains the public notice requirements: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/995...
> To be fair, any FTA (including the TPP) will be made public for a minimum of 4 months before Congress can vote on it (although with TPA they won't be allowed to offer amendments to it).
So not only it completely defeats the point (if you can't make amendments) it gives a joke of a time in comparison with years of development of such agreements when all kind of nasty stuff can be sneaked it which can change local laws. In short - it's not a democratic process at all, it's a farce of institutionalized corruption.
So not only it completely defeats the point (if you can't make amendments) it gives a joke of a time in comparison with years of development of such agreements when all kind of nasty stuff can be sneaked it which can change local laws. In short - it's not a democratic process at all, it's a farce of institutionalized corruption.
This has been pretty standard for decades. If amendments were allowed, other actors couldn't negotiate with the US in good faith since after an agreement was made and the text made public (and remember, they have their own public political considerations), the US Congress could move the bar. The President still has pressure to deliver a sound agreement though or Congress can simply reject it.
With regard to the timeline, it takes a lot longer to negotiate terms with multiple actors, where a single sentence or word could be debated for days and months, than it takes to read and understand the effects of the final text.
With regard to the timeline, it takes a lot longer to negotiate terms with multiple actors, where a single sentence or word could be debated for days and months, than it takes to read and understand the effects of the final text.
> This has been pretty standard for decades. If amendments were allowed, other actors couldn't negotiate with the US in good faith since after an agreement was made and the text made public (and remember, they have their own public political considerations)
It's easily fixable - make negotiations public to begin with. Doesn't WIPO follow such practice anyway? So, the only reason not to make it public is to hide something that public will not accept. It should be a simple rule - any negotiations which affect the legal system should be public. Period. And stuff like TPP clearly does affect laws.
It's easily fixable - make negotiations public to begin with. Doesn't WIPO follow such practice anyway? So, the only reason not to make it public is to hide something that public will not accept. It should be a simple rule - any negotiations which affect the legal system should be public. Period. And stuff like TPP clearly does affect laws.
Reasonable people can debate whether it's helpful or harmful to precede public ratification of a trade deal with secret negotiations, but I don't think reasonable people can argue that the only reason to do secret negotiations is to slip toxic provisions past a suspicious public.
Trade deals happen between whole countries, not individual businesses. Each company compromises many hundreds of businesses. In any trade deal, there will be winner companies and loser companies. The negotiators for each country need to strike terms so that the wins pay for the losses and then some. It's much harder to do that if all the big companies that stand to lose from a deal get a veto vote early in the process.
Trade deals happen between whole countries, not individual businesses. Each company compromises many hundreds of businesses. In any trade deal, there will be winner companies and loser companies. The negotiators for each country need to strike terms so that the wins pay for the losses and then some. It's much harder to do that if all the big companies that stand to lose from a deal get a veto vote early in the process.
Whether it's the only reason to make it secret or not is not really the point. As long as secrecy allows circumventing the democratic process and create laws through a backdoor it shouldn't be allowed. If you paid attention, these agreements aren't about trade. They are about promoting interests of some businesses through legislative means. Companies can gain or lose, but so is the public. Therefore there is no reason to give companies some preferential treatment here.
Reasonable people also debate whether what's happening here "circumvents the democratic process", since the point of the secret negotiation is to generate a proposal that, in the US at least, requires Congressional authorization.
Personally: I think the reason people resort to "undemocratic" and "backdoor" rhetoric is because they realize that once the treaty is put to a "it's this treaty or no treaty" vote, it will inevitably pass. The people who want a more "open" process really want more hooks earlier in the process to hold the whole treaty hostage to their interests. They can do that early in the process because the stakes are very low ("accede to our demands or the negotiation will be delayed"). They can't do that once the treaty is finalized ("accede to our demands or there will be no free trade agreement").
That's not a value judgement. Many of those interests are extremely worthy. But they should be argued on their merits, and not through a misleading appeal to democratic process. Democratic process sometimes seems like what many of TPP's opponents seem to be afraid of. (ducking)
(I have no idea if I personally support TPP. I'm a LeVeyan liberal Democrat; "Do What's Best For The Public School System Shalt Be The Whole Of The Law".)
Personally: I think the reason people resort to "undemocratic" and "backdoor" rhetoric is because they realize that once the treaty is put to a "it's this treaty or no treaty" vote, it will inevitably pass. The people who want a more "open" process really want more hooks earlier in the process to hold the whole treaty hostage to their interests. They can do that early in the process because the stakes are very low ("accede to our demands or the negotiation will be delayed"). They can't do that once the treaty is finalized ("accede to our demands or there will be no free trade agreement").
That's not a value judgement. Many of those interests are extremely worthy. But they should be argued on their merits, and not through a misleading appeal to democratic process. Democratic process sometimes seems like what many of TPP's opponents seem to be afraid of. (ducking)
(I have no idea if I personally support TPP. I'm a LeVeyan liberal Democrat; "Do What's Best For The Public School System Shalt Be The Whole Of The Law".)
>I think the reason people resort to "undemocratic" and "backdoor" rhetoric is because they realize that once the treaty is put to a "it's this treaty or no treaty" vote, it will inevitably pass.
That's exactly what undemocratic means here. I.e. democratic process reduced to rubberstamping farce.
> The people who want a more "open" process really want more hooks earlier in the process to hold the whole treaty hostage to their interests.
People want laws to have democratic oversight instead of rubberstamping of shady deals. Saying that there is some formal approval is completely irrelevant when you admit that it can't change anything.
> That's not a value judgement. Many of those interests are extremely worthy. But they should be argued on their merits
That would be an argument of democracy vs plutocracy.
That's exactly what undemocratic means here. I.e. democratic process reduced to rubberstamping farce.
> The people who want a more "open" process really want more hooks earlier in the process to hold the whole treaty hostage to their interests.
People want laws to have democratic oversight instead of rubberstamping of shady deals. Saying that there is some formal approval is completely irrelevant when you admit that it can't change anything.
> That's not a value judgement. Many of those interests are extremely worthy. But they should be argued on their merits
That would be an argument of democracy vs plutocracy.
You're using emotional words like "rubber-stamping" and "farcical" to describe the same phenomenon I just did. You're confirming my comment: the appeal to "rubber-stamping" is really just the concession that, put to a Congressional vote, people who oppose some provisions of the TPP would still rather have a flawed TPP than no TPP.
One way you can see that's the case: the same rubber-stamping Congress would have been rubber-stamping away had the negotiations been completely open.
One way you can see that's the case: the same rubber-stamping Congress would have been rubber-stamping away had the negotiations been completely open.
> You're using emotional words like "rubber-stamping"
I'm just rephrasing what you said yourself:
> they realize that once the treaty is put to a "it's this treaty or no treaty" vote, it will inevitably pass.
That's rubberstamping. If you don't like the term, call it a fake democratic process.
> One way you can see that's the case: the same rubber-stamping Congress would have been rubber-stamping away had the negotiations been completely open.
No, because the amount of public input is significant here. Reducing it is exactly the goal of backroom deals.
It's explained here pretty well: http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/
I'm just rephrasing what you said yourself:
> they realize that once the treaty is put to a "it's this treaty or no treaty" vote, it will inevitably pass.
That's rubberstamping. If you don't like the term, call it a fake democratic process.
> One way you can see that's the case: the same rubber-stamping Congress would have been rubber-stamping away had the negotiations been completely open.
No, because the amount of public input is significant here. Reducing it is exactly the goal of backroom deals.
It's explained here pretty well: http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/
Despite the domain name, that comic was not written by an economist; it's a political polemic that repeatedly argues that any argument by an economist must be suspicious (which apart from being false is also incredibly lazy, since there are plenty of economists to source for arguments against TPP).
It's also hard to comprehend:
* It has an extended segment about the trade deficit between the US and China and its impact on the valuation of the Yuan, despite the fact that China is not a party to the TPP.
* It argues that TPP will enable the US to outsource jobs to Asia, but the US already can outsource jobs to Asia, and for the most part has outsourced every job that's economical to outsource.
* Something about how the finance industry is a sentient evil robot, and now, to understand how that applies to the TPP, let's replace the robot with a country... let's say China.
If this is where you're getting your information on TPP, it's no wonder you're emotional about it. Try Dean Baker at CEPR. Don't worry: he also fiercely opposes TPP.
It's also hard to comprehend:
* It has an extended segment about the trade deficit between the US and China and its impact on the valuation of the Yuan, despite the fact that China is not a party to the TPP.
* It argues that TPP will enable the US to outsource jobs to Asia, but the US already can outsource jobs to Asia, and for the most part has outsourced every job that's economical to outsource.
* Something about how the finance industry is a sentient evil robot, and now, to understand how that applies to the TPP, let's replace the robot with a country... let's say China.
If this is where you're getting your information on TPP, it's no wonder you're emotional about it. Try Dean Baker at CEPR. Don't worry: he also fiercely opposes TPP.
Can anyone summarize why this is so bad for everyone except the super rich? I understand how manufacturing will be hurt and it sounds like agriculture comes out to be mostly a wash. But it sounds like the US services industries will be helped by the agreement.
There are two specific issues that come up regularly, and two background issues with the whole concept of free trade agreements.
Specific issue #1: the TPP, like a bunch of other trade agreements, includes semi-binding arbitration. Enact a system of regulated free trade and you generate disputes. But there's no meaningful international legal system (a "world trade court" that can resolve those disputes. Trade dispute resolution is therefore extrajudicial. (TPP's arbitration is "semi-binding" in that TPP arbitrators have authority only to impose fines; they can't change our laws).
Specific issue #2: a key goal of TPP is to harmonize worldwide IP laws with those of the US. But much of the world has lax IP laws compared to the US, specifically for drugs. Dean Baker at CEPR --- a credible and fiercely liberal economist --- believes drug regulation will increase prices in the US (by how much, I haven't really seen estimates). Pretty much everyone believes that if TPP is actually enforced for pharma, it will increase drug prices in the rest of the world, and also squeeze out companies that have carved niches for themselves by arbitraging the different patent regimes to manufacture drugs that are still on-patent in the US.
Background issue #1: modern free trade agreements always involve IP regulations, and IP is a valence issue on Internet forums: most vocal Internet commenters ambiently oppose all IP regulation. TPP doesn't significantly alter IP law in the US, but it does further ratify that law, taking us steps away from reforming them. If you think IP reform was in the cards, you don't like TPP.
Background issue #2: the US economy is, by design, owned by large companies; those companies are in turn mostly owned by large investment firms. A plurality of the stakeholders in those firms are "wealthy elites" (not scare quoting). Free trade agreements that the US supports are designed to juice the economy, and thus improve outcomes for big companies. "Wealthy elites" have far more direct exposure to investment upside than "workers". So there's a natural concern about conflict-of-interest: TPP will benefit the wealthy more than it will the working class.
There are reasonable rebuttals to all these points, but you asked for the liberal brief against TPP, and I think that's a solid summary of it.
Specific issue #1: the TPP, like a bunch of other trade agreements, includes semi-binding arbitration. Enact a system of regulated free trade and you generate disputes. But there's no meaningful international legal system (a "world trade court" that can resolve those disputes. Trade dispute resolution is therefore extrajudicial. (TPP's arbitration is "semi-binding" in that TPP arbitrators have authority only to impose fines; they can't change our laws).
Specific issue #2: a key goal of TPP is to harmonize worldwide IP laws with those of the US. But much of the world has lax IP laws compared to the US, specifically for drugs. Dean Baker at CEPR --- a credible and fiercely liberal economist --- believes drug regulation will increase prices in the US (by how much, I haven't really seen estimates). Pretty much everyone believes that if TPP is actually enforced for pharma, it will increase drug prices in the rest of the world, and also squeeze out companies that have carved niches for themselves by arbitraging the different patent regimes to manufacture drugs that are still on-patent in the US.
Background issue #1: modern free trade agreements always involve IP regulations, and IP is a valence issue on Internet forums: most vocal Internet commenters ambiently oppose all IP regulation. TPP doesn't significantly alter IP law in the US, but it does further ratify that law, taking us steps away from reforming them. If you think IP reform was in the cards, you don't like TPP.
Background issue #2: the US economy is, by design, owned by large companies; those companies are in turn mostly owned by large investment firms. A plurality of the stakeholders in those firms are "wealthy elites" (not scare quoting). Free trade agreements that the US supports are designed to juice the economy, and thus improve outcomes for big companies. "Wealthy elites" have far more direct exposure to investment upside than "workers". So there's a natural concern about conflict-of-interest: TPP will benefit the wealthy more than it will the working class.
There are reasonable rebuttals to all these points, but you asked for the liberal brief against TPP, and I think that's a solid summary of it.
Thank you. So it doesn't sound like there is much that specifically hurts middle class to lower upper class Americans, it's just that it contributes to continued power & wealth accumulation in the upper upper class, the prevention of which could be seen as a reasonable goal in its own right.
If you asked a manufacturing worker in Youngstown, OH what they thought of the TPP, their answer would immediately be "it's just a way to help rich people export our jobs to Asia".
On the other hand, it might be reasonable to assume that the barriers to that were already so low that jobs that can be exported to Asia already have been.
On the other hand, it might be reasonable to assume that the barriers to that were already so low that jobs that can be exported to Asia already have been.
All this just makes me sick and angry. I wonder if congress will ever represent the people.
> Mr. Obama’s top legislative priority in his final years in office.
Is it too late to make a 'hope & change' joke without sounding cliché?
Is it too late to make a 'hope & change' joke without sounding cliché?
So this is pretty much guaranteeing that the TPP agreement will pass now? Good grief...
You know you can't get rid of the Pres. But you can get rid of these senators. Please find out who voted for this, and do not vote for them again.
Surprise, surprise.
The simple solution is to ignore illegitimate laws.
The legal process no longer concerns itself with the average citizen, why then does the average citizen show concern over the law?
The legal process no longer concerns itself with the average citizen, why then does the average citizen show concern over the law?
How does one "ignore" illegitimate trade agreements? By not trading with Asia?
Smuggling, ignoring IP laws, refusing to comply with fines or other rulings. You seem like a smart guy, try using your brain.
It's hard to employ smuggling as a protest against a free trade deal, since the point of a free trade deal is to reduce the set of goods that need to be smuggled. And the fines in the TPP are settled between governments, not between aggrieved governments and individual foreign citizens.
How would you know what the TPP entails?
From leaks it suggests it involves companies suing governments for cash settlement.
Also, you are rather naive if you think 'free trade' means free trade, it will be nothing of the sort, it will raise barriers and make many goods and services more expensive.
From leaks it suggests it involves companies suing governments for cash settlement.
Also, you are rather naive if you think 'free trade' means free trade, it will be nothing of the sort, it will raise barriers and make many goods and services more expensive.
This is neither responsive to my comment (which points out that TPP fines are settled between governments, and not to people who can "ignore" fines; somehow, this has become an argument against my comment?) nor falsifiable.
Perhaps English is not your native language?
How do you know TPP fines are settled between governments? TPP is still ongoing, and is secret. How can I be more clear?
As for your opinion about free trade, it hardly deserves a response, please consult a dictionary because you are not using the word correctly.
How do you know TPP fines are settled between governments? TPP is still ongoing, and is secret. How can I be more clear?
As for your opinion about free trade, it hardly deserves a response, please consult a dictionary because you are not using the word correctly.
And now a new era of Man begins
When the Republicans agree with Obama on something, you know the bill is terrible for regular citizens.
Everyone except the very rich are about to get slapped in the face by a whole slew of bad policy decisions :\
Obama himself has said he has no more campaigns to run:
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-i-know-cause-i-won-both...
So at this point, he's beholden not to the common voters, but to the wealthy who also helped him get into office (and who, unlike the common voters, he can still benefit from in the years to come)
This isn't specific to Obama, but is the game of a career in politics.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-i-know-cause-i-won-both...
So at this point, he's beholden not to the common voters, but to the wealthy who also helped him get into office (and who, unlike the common voters, he can still benefit from in the years to come)
This isn't specific to Obama, but is the game of a career in politics.
Political flamewar comments are no more welcome on HN than religious ones.