As our economy continues to struggle, Congress has a new issue that lies before it, whether or not to approve fast track trade authority and eventually the Trans-Pacific Partnership(TPP). The TPP is a trade agreement with a dozen or so countries in the pacific region including, the U.S., Canada, Australia, Peru, New Zealand, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico, and Japan. South Korea, Taiwan and China have additionally expressed interest in the partnership.
 |
| Source Wikipedia.org |
Earlier this month a fast track bill was submitted to congress, and President Obama has made it known that he wants to use Fast Track Authority to sign two trade agreements that could have significant impact on the American economy and have lasting effects on the U.S. sovereignty.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, would economically unite a dozen countries of the Pacific in vastly different states of development and who have radically different standards for worker rights, consumer safety and environmental protection.
Similar to previous free trade agreements such as NAFTA and KORUS, there is much dissatisfaction in some groups who see it as a corporate sellout, shipping jobs overseas while increasing imports of cheap goods to the U.S. Many opponents look at some of the included countries such as Japan as currency manipulators, and feel that the current fast track language does not protect against further manipulation, especially if China were to enter the agreement.
Those who are for the TPP say that it will open doors for the U.S. to modernize some of the third world countries included in the agreement. Additionally the U.S. would see some decreasing tariffs on goods to countries such as Japan.
Similar to previous free trade agreements such as NAFTA and KORUS, there is much dissatisfaction in some groups who see it as a corporate sellout, shipping jobs overseas while increasing imports of cheap goods to the U.S. Many opponents look at some of the included countries such as Japan as currency manipulators, and feel that the current fast track language does not protect against further manipulation, especially if China were to enter the agreement.
Those who are for the TPP say that it will open doors for the U.S. to modernize some of the third world countries included in the agreement. Additionally the U.S. would see some decreasing tariffs on goods to countries such as Japan.
However much of how the TPP will impact the U.S. is unknown as this agreement has been kept away from the public eye, and even from our own members of congress. Meanwhile over 600 individuals — including industry lobbyists, corporate leaders, and government trade representatives have negotiated the TPP behind closed doors.
This becomes a problem as corporate lobbyists have access to the details, and have influence over the negotiation process, many members of Congress have been kept in the dark about even the basic details of this agreement. For several years they were not allowed access to any of the details of the agreement.
This becomes a problem as corporate lobbyists have access to the details, and have influence over the negotiation process, many members of Congress have been kept in the dark about even the basic details of this agreement. For several years they were not allowed access to any of the details of the agreement.
Only recently have members been granted limited access. To do so they must make a special appointment where they were only allowed to read sections of the agreement they specifically asked for; they were not allowed to take notes or discuss any of the details with anyone, not even their staff.
One member who has seen the text, Allen Grayson said about it "Having seen what I've seen, I would characterize this as a gross abrogation of American sovereignty," Grayson told the Huffington Post. "And I would further characterize it as a punch in the face to the middle class of America. I think that's fair to say from what I've seen so far. But I'm not allowed to tell you why!"
One member who has seen the text, Allen Grayson said about it "Having seen what I've seen, I would characterize this as a gross abrogation of American sovereignty," Grayson told the Huffington Post. "And I would further characterize it as a punch in the face to the middle class of America. I think that's fair to say from what I've seen so far. But I'm not allowed to tell you why!"
Why is the TPP being kept such a secret? Only 5 of the 29 sections of the agreement deal with trade. Among the few details that have been leaked include vast changes to intellectual property, pharmaceutical laws, and internet neutrality. Two sections of the agreement have been leaked by Wikileaks, one dealing with intellectual property, and on the environment.
What has had some people up at arms is the intellectual property section, as some view this as a way to get SOPA into U.S. law. It does specifically grant the authority for governments to enforce Intellectual Property laws on internet service providers.
Additionally it would extend many of the copyright lengths including on pharmaceuticals. This is seen as a disadvantage to most people in the U.S. as it would extend the length of time before new medicines would be available in generic form, and could increase medical costs as well.
While the environmental chapter would have no significant impact on current U.S. law, the fear is that there is no provisions to ensure that other countries are living up to the standard, some have even called it a "toothless PR exercise."
Included in the agreement are provisions designed to allow corporations to sue governments in international court, with no appeal process. This is a clear usurpation of constitutional authority.
It is believed by some that the current form of fast track is unconstitutional, because it does not grant full ability for members of Congress the ability to have oversight over the negotiations. For those who are not familiar the constitution says this about treaties, congressional and executive authority etc. I will outline the following for you:
Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to set the terms of trade and specifies that all treaties must be with the advice and consent of the Senate. Meanwhile, the executive branch has constitutional authority to negotiate with foreign sovereigns on behalf of our nation. The Founders established this clear check and balance to prevent the president from unilaterally negotiating with foreign nations and imposing trade policies that Congress would deem to be against the best interests of our nation.
Additionally Article VI Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
What this clearly states is that any treaty that would be signed, would therefore become the law of the land, binding on the U.S. additionally, while it puts the role of negotiator in the hands of the Executive, it must be under the direction of Congress. Additionally giving that much authority to unelected bureaucrats is dangerous, no matter who is in power.
Much more will be coming on fast track and the TPP, and it is vital that we are aware of it. Fast track as written should be significantly amended or replaced, with stronger protections put in place to ensure that the U.S. economy gains from this agreement, and is not damaged further by this trade agreement.
Additionally it would extend many of the copyright lengths including on pharmaceuticals. This is seen as a disadvantage to most people in the U.S. as it would extend the length of time before new medicines would be available in generic form, and could increase medical costs as well.
While the environmental chapter would have no significant impact on current U.S. law, the fear is that there is no provisions to ensure that other countries are living up to the standard, some have even called it a "toothless PR exercise."
Included in the agreement are provisions designed to allow corporations to sue governments in international court, with no appeal process. This is a clear usurpation of constitutional authority.
It is believed by some that the current form of fast track is unconstitutional, because it does not grant full ability for members of Congress the ability to have oversight over the negotiations. For those who are not familiar the constitution says this about treaties, congressional and executive authority etc. I will outline the following for you:
Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to set the terms of trade and specifies that all treaties must be with the advice and consent of the Senate. Meanwhile, the executive branch has constitutional authority to negotiate with foreign sovereigns on behalf of our nation. The Founders established this clear check and balance to prevent the president from unilaterally negotiating with foreign nations and imposing trade policies that Congress would deem to be against the best interests of our nation.
Additionally Article VI Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
What this clearly states is that any treaty that would be signed, would therefore become the law of the land, binding on the U.S. additionally, while it puts the role of negotiator in the hands of the Executive, it must be under the direction of Congress. Additionally giving that much authority to unelected bureaucrats is dangerous, no matter who is in power.
Much more will be coming on fast track and the TPP, and it is vital that we are aware of it. Fast track as written should be significantly amended or replaced, with stronger protections put in place to ensure that the U.S. economy gains from this agreement, and is not damaged further by this trade agreement.
