In support of Trade Promotion Authority

http://stevedeace.com ^ | June 17, 2015 | Joel Kurtinitis

[Lucky9teen]

Most of the recent discussion surrounding Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) has focused on the overwhelming distrust of the President from, well, pretty much everyone. Many fear that the President plans to use trade agreement back-doors to compromise US sovereignty and ram through environmental and immigration policies that would not have a chance of making it through the GOP-controlled congress. The most consistent critique of those who support TPA (other than the criticisms mistakenly applied to TPA, that were intended for the TPP… read this to clear up that confusion) is that we should not trust this President with more power given his track record of abusing authority and circumventing Congress.

The funny thing is that we completely agree.

And that’s why we support the TPA.

Those who treat TPA as an unprecedented empowerment of the President do so without the support of history – and there is a lot of history to contend with. The narrative goes that according to Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, the President has no right to negotiate trade deals, his Article II powers of treaty negotiation notwithstanding.

This interpretation is not changing due to this week’s TPA vote – it changed 125 years ago with the McKinley Tariff Act, which empowered the President to unilaterally set tariffs with Congressional authority at his back. This delegation of authority was challenged and ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1892. From that time on, Presidents gained more and more unilateral trade negotiation and tariff imposition power, taking a giant leap forward under FDR with the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934. The idea behind the centralization of negotiating power was similar to that of the Founders with treaty negotiation – it’s almost impossible to negotiate with a foreign nation when subjecting the final agreement to the knuckle-dragging and self-interested amendments of 535 warring legislators. No nation (or individual, for that matter) wants to sign an agreement, only to have a bunch of amendments tacked on post-ratification.

For almost a century, the President had vast authority to negotiate with foreign powers, and little accountability to Congress at all.

That all changed in 1974, when the Democratic congressional majority decided to push back against Republican President Richard Nixon by establishing their own priorities and terms for trade negotiation with the Trade Act of 1974 – the progenitor of and template for the modern TPA.

The Trade Act laid out Congressional trade priorities, and bound the President to abide by them during negotiations. It also set strict reporting requirements on the executive, and placed both houses of Congress in direct oversight before, during, and after trade negotiations. In return, Congress agreed to allow a vote on any negotiated agreements without amendment or filibuster – an insignificant concession given the fact that The Congress hadn’t used its constitutional authority on any trade or tariff negotiation for decades. The guarantee of an up/down vote from Congress gave the President the negotiating leverage by assuring foreign partners that a given agreement would last beyond the end of an administration – the single luxury that Presidents did not have prior to the passage of the ’74 Act.

Many of those discussing the 2015 TPA assume that in its absence, trade deals and foreign negotiations would revert back to the jurisdiction of Congress, and the President would be bound to futility for the duration of his term. But without overturning over a century of trade law and court precedent, that’s not going to happen. The President still has enormous legal authority for the negotiation of trade and tariff agreements, requiring zero Congressional oversight or approval. Whether this should be the case or not is irrelevant – the fact is that there is a strong legal background for such authority, and the courts have upheld challenges against it for over a hundred years. If TPA fails, trade agreements default back to the President – who has already shown that he will not hesitate to act unilaterally.

Consider the irony of Conservatives working to prevent the TPA and thereby returning unchecked negotiating power to a President who is already in the middle of negotiating a deal with Iran in total defiance of both houses of congress.

Who’s the trusting one?

The whole discussion reminds me of a long-forgotten scene from a long-forgotten movie whose franchise got a reboot this very weekend. In the critically-disdained Jurassic Park III, Dr. Grant’s young sidekick has stolen some raptor eggs, hoping that they will help fund a flailing research endeavor back in the states. Knowing the bereft raptors would soon come looking for the eggs, Dr. Grant seems ready to throw the eggs away, before reconsidering . Another character insists he get rid of the eggs, urgently asking “What if they catch us with them?” Dr. Grant, without missing a beat, turns and responds, “What if they catch us without them?”

This is the defining dilemma of the TPA. While there is of course a risk that a lawless executive will disregard some of the limitations set forth, without the limitations and congressional priorities defined in the TPA, President Obama is free to negotiate and sign the United States on to any trade agreement or tariff hike he sees as beneficial. This dangerous lack of congressional oversight is exactly what can breathe life into the corporate global Frankenstein that both conservatives and liberals currently fear. While shockingly few of the internet warriors I’ve encountered have actually read the easily-available text of the TPA, there are a lot of important provisions that they would see if they did. Here are just a few of them.

1) The TPA contains an extensive list of Congressional objectives that the President must pursue and deliver in order to retain trade promotion authority. Among the priorities listed in the current TPA are: protection of intellectual property, ending unfair currency manipulation among member nations, open US markets in other nations by ending access limitations imposed upon US businesses by other governments, and protect Israel against coordinated foreign boycotts.

2) According to the terms of TPA, the promotion of any environmental policies through a trade agreement is limited to partner nations – exempting the US from any such imposition.

3) The President must submit an annual report to Congress on the progress of any trade agreement toward the objective set forth in the TPA – failure to meet Congressional objectives is grounds for revocation of TPA.

4) Any implementing law changes from any trade agreement must go through the normal legislative process.

5) Requires that one member of each house of congress (chosen by that house) be credentialed as a member of the US trade delegation, providing a window for constant oversight by both houses of congress as negotiations progress.

6) Establishes a new transparency officer to assist US Trade Representative in disseminating information about all proposed trade deals to the public. Specifically calls for soliciting public input on proposed trade deals.

7) Requires that the President notify Congress of any new trade agreements he intends to negotiate at least 90 days before initiating talks.

8) The President must submit a complete implementation plan to Congress when he submits the finalized agreement for consideration. Must contain budget, personnel, and all other implementation requirements, upfront.

9) All finalized agreements must be publicly available online at least 60 days prior to a vote of Congress on the agreement.

10) Any agreements which do not follow the terms of the TPA are null.

11) Congress may withdraw TPA at any time if the President fails to follow all terms set forth in TPA – including reporting to Congress at the discretion of at least three different congressional committees.

12) Dispute settlement panel rulings apply only to the terms of the trade agreement in question, and are explicitly stated to be non-binding to the United States. We comply with them if we feel like it.

13) Finally, Section 8 of the TPA, titled “Sovereignty” ensures that no trade agreement trumps standing US law. The opening paragraph reads as follows:

“UNITED STATES LAW TO PREVAIL IN EVENT OF CONFLICT. — 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.”

Given the restrictive nature of the TPA and its binding effect upon the Executive Branch, one would think that passing the terms would be a no-brainer from a conservative standpoint – particularly when some of the most ardent adversaries of TPA are notorious right-wingers Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Elizabeth Warren. But unfortunately many conservatives have joined with the far-left to torpedo the TPA, thereby exposing America to the unbounded lawlessness of the Obama administration.

Unwilling to trust President Obama on gun rights, immigration, religious liberty, and in negotiating a deal with Iran, conservatives have insisted that their representatives in Congress bring him back within the bounds of the law and Congressional accountability.

It’s too bad that they trust him to negotiate international trade without those bounds.

[SoConPubbie]

Have you read the secret bill behind the secret doors?

Myth 5: TPP is being negotiated via a dangerous and unprecedented level of secrecy!

Totally false. Probably the most-repeated myth right now isn’t even related to TPA but instead to the TPP, which is still being negotiated. According to the anti-TPA script, the TPP is so secret that nobody knows what’s in it, and—much like Obamacare legislation—nobody, not even Congress, will know what’s in it until the agreement is passed into law. Once again, however, nothing could be further from the truth:

• First, Obama’s USTR and Congress have been consulting on the TPP since December 14, 2009, when then-USTR Kirk notified Congress that President Obama intended to enter into TPP negotiations. USTR then held initial consultations with Congress in 2010 and, according to a January 2015 fact-sheet, has since held almost 1,700 congressional briefings on TPP alone. USTR also previewed various TPP proposals with key congressional committees before taking them to our trading partners. (Odd that the TPP talks have been going on for six years, but the vast majority of these “secrecy” complaints have only emerged in the last few months, huh?)
• Second, USTR has provided “access to the full negotiating texts for any Member of Congress, including for Members to view at their convenience in the Capitol, accompanied by staff members with appropriate security clearance.” This access began in 2012, and several House members and senators—both supportive of TPA (like Mike Lee) and opposed (like Sens. Jeff Sessions and Elizabeth Warren, as well as Rep. Rosa DeLauro)—have reviewed the draft negotiating texts. Moreover, the level of security surrounding these TPP texts isn’t part of some scary Obama administration plot; it’s set by Congress (which, as you’ll recall, is controlled by Republicans these days). A U.S. government official confirmed to me that “the Senate and House security offices determine the procedures for viewing classified material in the Capitol reading room where the TPP text is kept for Members—not the administration… some people claim that it’s more difficult to view military or intelligence information, but it’s all subject to the same rules that are set and enforced by Capitol security.”
• Third, USTR has engaged the public on the TPP via published reports and “stakeholder meetings” with groups like labor unions, consumer groups, and, of course, corporations and trade associations. Some of these stakeholders have even reviewed the negotiating texts and US proposals. Admittedly, the official texts aren’t available to the general public, but this is common practice for all FTAs (as a quick Google search reveals) and for good reason: just like other high-value negotiations among private parties or governments, revealing draft proposals before a deal is struck emboldens the opposition, undermines the parties’ negotiating positions, and exposes negotiators to public scrutiny over provisions that might not even be in a final deal. Publishing draft FTA texts would make completing a deal difficult, if not impossible, and it’s thus no coincidence the most vocal advocates for “full transparency” in free trade negotiations are actually those most opposed to free trade.It’s also important to understand just how unoriginal this “secrecy” canard is:
  

  Today's history lesson: Nutty ol' Perot on NAFTA's scary secrecy. Sound familiar? #TPP #TPA https://t.co/YLjlJfusUr pic.twitter.com/l1LGWPftzV
  
  — Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) June 5, 2015

Yes, protectionists have been using the same “secrecy” lines for over 20 years. In fact, if you replaced “NAFTA” with “TPP” in those old Ross Perot commercials, they’d be almost indistinguishable from the ones on our TVs today.

• Finally, unlike the oft-analogized Obamacare legislation, the actual text of any final TPP deal will be required by law to be publicly available (online) for months—yes, months—before Congress votes on it. As you can see from the table below (source), under TPA the president must make the entire text of any trade agreement, including TPP, available to the public for 60 days before he can even sign it.Once it’s signed, Congress will have weeks, maybe months, to scour the deal, hold “mock markups” in various committees, and suggest changes to the agreement before the president sends Congress legislation implementing the FTA for a final vote. Also, within 105 days of the FTA’s signing, the U.S. International Trade Commission must issue a report on the deal’s economic impact—again prior those bills being submitted to Congress. And once the bills finally are submitted, Congress will then have up to 90 legislative days (which is like five months in normal human days) to review the bills and hold final votes.

Bottom line: when or if TPA is passed, the general public will have months—and if the presidential elections interfere, maybe years—to review the TPP before Congress acts on it. Think that’s crazy? Well, it’s precisely what happened to U.S. FTAs with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, which were signed by President Bush but sat around (online) for years before they were submitted to, and passed by, Congress in 2011.

[FourtySeven]

Ok this is very helpful and it answers my questions, at least mostly, in my post 29. However I'm still left wondering: Why is President Obama so eager to pass TPA? Isn't that a fact, that he wants this passed? If so, why is Cruz not wary of this fact? Doesn't Obama's enthusiasm for the bill give Cruz pause?

I can see, given what you have posted here, how in the long term it's in the Republican interest (and really American interest) to have TPA (since its been taken away by Reid apparently a while ago) since we can't really negotiate trade deals (with tarrifs as part of said deals) without such legislation originating in the House. And that is what TPA takes care of, ceding that ability (as a negotiation tactic) to the Executive.

I can see and understand all that but honestly, even though Obama has only 18 months left in his term, do we even want to give him this authority even with only 18 months left? Don't we believe he can still do tremendous damage even in just 18 months? It's not like it's only 2-5 months. 18 months, that's a year and a half.

We know he has every intent to harm this country, because he believes we are "too prosperous" like the good Marxist he is. We all know this is a fact, as far as Obama goes. So do we really want to give him 18 months to negotiate trade deals?

I guess it's a rock and a hard place situation, because again we don't want a Republican president to not have this authority, and we know the Dems would torpedo such attempts. But still, it just seems too early. Why not wait until next year, say around Jan or Feb of next year, limiting Obama as much as possible?

[tennmountainman]

That is not my question.

Have you read the secret bill in the secret room?

It is a yes or no question.

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

cotton1706 :" This is all smoke an mirrors and outright lies."
Why do you think they call it “fast track”?
In other words, rush through with no debate (and no amendments).
Negotiate (alone), sign, then strong-arm it through.
We’ve seen this dance many times before."

Agreed with 'smoke and mirrors'.. absoutely true
I haven't seen ANYTHING from this _resident that justifies any trust in him over the last 6 years.
Too much 'OVER REACH'
For example :
IRS with discrimination against Conservative groups.
IRS used to tax Corporations and individuals into bogus "Green energy" SUBMISSION.
Refusal over the last 2 years of IRS giving up Lerner Memos, after saying they were purged, then finding them , them not releasing due to possibly double eamils.(deny/delay)
State Dept. giving up Sect. of Sate emails in a timely manner, still more than timely ! (deny/delay)
A GOP more complicit with administration and Chamber of Commerce , rather than the stated will of the Citizenry
Six years claiming "Global Warming", cheating and adjusting records to fit 'false science'.
Six years of economic recovery, whereas the truth is six years of obfiscation , and outright LIES !
Financial and military arms support for Lybian Rebels affiliated with Al Quada, resulting in the murder of Our Ambassodore and three others,
and then lied to the American people for almost 2 years about the the circumstances regarding this planned attack ,
when he knew the truth.
Trading a deserter and untold $ missions of dollars and given up 6 Isalamic Commanders who want to destroy us,
and now ,..we are to trust him ?
What planet do you live on ..? For sure it isn't this planet ,... or have anything to do with reality !!

Lucky9teen , I believe you are an Obungler troll , or bought and paid for by the GOPe !

[Bobby_Taxpayer]

BUT...why is this the most pressing issue on Congress’s plate? Let’s get a balanced budget done first before they sell the farm.

[dware]

Congress has granted every U.S. president since FDR some form of trade negotiating authority

This supposes Obola is a legitimate president. He's not. AND, Congress ALREADY reviews and approves trade agreements. Let them do it. No "Fast Track" necessary. "Fast Track" = pass it to find out what's in it. No thanks.

[Enlightened1]

Hey you forgot BARF ALERT on your subject title! How is it wise TO LOWER VOTING STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR OVER 200 YEARS???? I get that it makes it easier to bribe congress, but don't you think they are corrupt enough???? Do you really think they can be trusted after they have been caught in lies over and over again? Let's not LOWER THE VOTING STANDARDS that George Washington put in over 200 years ago. LET NOT LIMIT THE DEBATE TO 60 DAY ONLY..., from the current unlimited time that it is already in place now. Now if neither of the above convince you. That fact that even Obama went to congress should concern you deeply. If it does not concern you then YOU HAVE LEARNED NOTHING from this Administration, the DRUNK Boehner or his fellow collaborator McConnell. Good grief... WAKE THE F*CK UP!!!!

[Enlightened1]

Hey you forgot BARF ALERT on your subject title!

How is it wise TO LOWER VOTING STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR OVER 200 YEARS????

I get that it makes it easier to bribe congress, but don’t you think they are corrupt enough???? Do you really think they can be trusted after they have been caught in lies over and over again?

Let’s not LOWER THE VOTING STANDARDS that George Washington put in over 200 years ago.

LET NOT LIMIT THE DEBATE TO 60 DAY ONLY..., from the current unlimited time that it is already in place now.

Now if neither of the above convince you. That fact that even Obama went to congress should concern you deeply. If it does not concern you then YOU HAVE LEARNED NOTHING from this Administration, the DRUNK Boehner or his fellow collaborator McConnell.

Good grief... WAKE THE F*CK UP!!!!

[cynwoody]

You forgot the link: https://www.tedcruz.org/a-note-to-conservatives-on-trade-agreements/

[tennmountainman]

Where is the text for the secret bill in the secret room?

[justa-hairyape]

So those poor uncompetitive businesses that are forced to compete with communist slave labor need to lose ? That is the facts of this agreement. You are targeting businesses for destruction and you admit that.

[conservativejoy]

Then if TPA is passed, TPP will automatically be declared null and void, because it does not meet the restrictions of TPA.

[cotton1706]

“Now re-read the article. The Supreme Court has already blessed fast-track.”

I did read the article. And so what that the Court has blessed it. It shouldn’t be given to any other president of any party, ever!

The president can negotiate some deal, then submit it to congress, the people representatives, which can then discuss it, debate it, and decide if it is good for the nation. And revise and amend it if necessary.

If foreign governments don’t like the fact that we have decided to have two separate departments involved in trade deals, that’s too damn bad. It’s called a check to power, which oligarchs always oppose.

[conservativejoy]

Good luck with Mrs Ippi. She has the absurd notion that bills that are voted down go to the President’s desk. She then thinks that he can veto a bill that didn’t pass and that it gets voted on again and has to have 2/3 against. I don’t know where she gets this nonsense, but facts don’t faze her.

[libbylu]

I received an email from Trey Gowdy and Senator Scott this morning explaining the new TPA is a good thing.

[Tzfat]

The more I studied it, the more I saw the merits.

Yeah, right. You and Cruz are the only people who understand. The rest of us are too stupid to know that giving Obama a blank check with TPA and hoping he won't cash it with TPP will all work out OK.

Cruz admits that TPP may not be good - but the only way to kill TPP is to kill TPA. But no, you guys are principled geniuses.

[Tzfat]

If you carefully read the particulars of the article, you’ll see that TPA does the opposite of giving Obama power.

Utter nonsense. Defeating TAA and hence TPA, will put the nail in the TPP coffin. Passing them gives Obama an excellent chance of getting TPP.

You do know that TPA is also called "Fast Track Authority" don't you? That is by very definition GIVING THE MARXIST OBAMA POWER. You have really drunk the Koolaid...

[conservativejoy]

TPA puts restrictions on the President that he currently doesn’t have. It requires Congress to be involved in negotiations and requires transparency of the trade deal, something that we have not had to this point. And no, it doesn’t guarantee TPP will pass. It guarantees that if the deal does not meet the restrictions of TPA, it will be DOA.

We have too many folks up for re election, nobody trusts Obama, and TPP will be voted on late 2016, with an unprecedented level of scrutiny.

TPP is not going to happen.

[conservativejoy]

No country will agree to getting the rug pulled out from under them after agreement is reached. That is why TPA requires Congress to be involved During negotiations. That way amendments are not needed and countries can sign the agreement knowing it is not going to be changed.

[Lucky9teen]

It amazes me that conservatives are reacting like liberals here...not reading the facts presented before them, denying what they mean or twisting them to fit what they have in their head.

I just don’t get what is so hard to understand...