Trade Promotion Authority - Trans-Pacific Partnership

[(1VB)compforce]

How is it that there is no discussion of these here? Did they somehow slip through the cracks?

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is a bill that passed the Senate and is currently being worked on in the House that grants "Fast Track" authority for the President when working on laws related to trade issues. It also delegates oversight on these agreements to the President (rather than Congress) and is a "Living Bill" meaning that it has language in it that allows the bill to be changed after the fact without having to be sent back to Congress for a new vote. (How did that work out for the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, HR 3590? http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003712 A different mechanism, but the Senate rewrote the entire bill and passed it as something completely different.)

Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is almost completely unknown because the details are not being released to the public. In fact, Congressmen (and women) that want to read the act have to go to a room, sign an NDA, they can then read the bill, but they are prohibited from taking notes out of the room, releasing any details or discussing it, even with other Congresspeople.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) has too many moving parts to summarize in a paragraph. The best explanation I've found is this one from the UK: http://www.foodpolitics.com/2014/09/more-on-food-trade-the-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-t-tip/

Here's a pretty good analysis of the two:

http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/trade-promotion-authority-trans-pacific-partnership-what-lies-ahead

There are a lot of rumors going around about what is in the TPP, but they are only rumors. What I do know is that you have Senator Sessions (R-AL) saying

In a letter to the president, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions expressed deep distrust that the deal is good for America, citing past free-trade deals that he said led to job cuts and didn't deliver on promises that trade deficits would be cut.


You can read his letter here: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sessions-hits-secret-trade-deal-unilateral-trade-disarmament/article/2564101

Now honestly... While I don't know whether I should be concerned about the content, the means by which this is being done really concerns me. These representatives of the American People are now putting together one of the biggest trade deals in the history of the US (same link as above) and hiding what they are doing not only from the people, but from each other. Why would I ever think that something that has to be done on this scale, behind closed doors, will be good for us? NAFTA was tiny compared to this agreement. The 12 nations negotiating it control 37% of the world's GDP. Shouldn't something this sweeping be open for debate? Instead, Paul Ryan says "It'll be declassified after we pass it". Doesn't that sound an awful lot like Pelosi saying "We have to pass it to find out what's in it"?

I get that trade agreements require quite a bit of secrecy while they are being negotiated. But shouldn't they have a period of time between the final agreement in principal and the vote where they are open for public comment? Didn't Obama promise that every bill would be posted for 72 hours prior to a vote being taken? Why is this different?

I'm not naive enough to believe that there aren't some things that must be done out of the public eye and that are very good for the country. This has the potential to change everything. Although I consider Breitbart a VERY suspect source, they are breaking news that there are major immigration rules included in one of the three bills. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/10/paul-ryan-cooks-up-elaborate-ruse-to-save-immigration-components-of-obamatrade/

From Senator Sessions

There are "numerous ways" the trade deal "could facilitate immigration increases above current law — and precious few ways anyone in Congress could stop its happening," Sessions wrote in a memo circulated during the weekend.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Jeff-Sessions-immigration-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Obama-administration/2015/05/05/id/642664/#ixzz3cnWtAlk8


Newsmax had the direct quote, but the memo is alluded to by many other sources.

Here's some light reading about the issues:
http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/trade-promotion-authority-trans-pacific-partnership-what-lies-ahead
http://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/5/sen-moran-statement-on-trade-promotion-authority-act
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-finds-a-path-forward-on-trade-legislation/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419595/vote-trade-promotion-authority-not-vote-obama-george-will
http://www.foodpolitics.com/2015/05/whats-up-with-the-trade-promotion-authority-act/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/06/10/the-house-needs-to-pass-trade-promotion-authority
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sessions-hits-secret-trade-deal-unilateral-trade-disarmament/article/2564101
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Jeff-Sessions-immigration-Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Obama-administration/2015/05/05/id/642664/

Unfortunately, I can't comment on the contents of the bills, but that's my whole point.

Oh, by the way, TPA is going to be voted on in the House tomorrow. Your thoughts?

[Pete]

The fact that this proposed law is so far along just shows there is little difference between Democrat and Republican leadership.

Big business wants it so the Republican leadership was bought off with 30 pieces of silver.

[JJ_BPK]

Question: How is it that there is no discussion of these here?

Answer #1: There are a lot of rumors going around about what is in the TPP, but they are only rumors. What I do know is that you have Senator Sessions (R-AL) saying

Answer #2: Unfortunately, I can't comment on the contents of the bills, but that's my whole point.




I think you answered your own question. :munchin

[Hand]

It's been mentioned. There is a whole lot of speculation and not many facts beyond the fringe available.

http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44550&highlight=TPP

I may have read that pieces of these two pieces of work are available on wikileaks.

[(1VB)compforce]

It's been mentioned. There is a whole lot of speculation and not many facts beyond the fringe available.

http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44550&highlight=TPP

I may have read that pieces of these two pieces of work are available on wikileaks.

Hmmm, wonder why it didn't show up when I searched. maybe I had too many terms in the search or something.

[Stobey]

The fact that this proposed law is so far along just shows there is little difference between Democrat and Republican leadership.

Big business wants it so the Republican leadership was bought off with 30 pieces of silver.

Absolutely. :(

[Stobey]

Here is something else to ponder:

TPA: Backdoor to Enforcement of UN's Arms Trade Treaty

Most pundits and politicians are claiming that the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is no more than a statutory acknowledgment of a power already possessed by the president to promote “free trade.”

For example, presidential candidate and senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) explained his recent vote in favor of the TPA this way:

Historically, since FDR virtually every president has had fast track authority. What fast track provides is simply if a free trade agreement is negotiated, that Congress will vote on it up or down without amendments and history has demonstrated for the last 80 years that the only way to get free trade agreements adopted is to have fast track. That if there is no fast track, free trade agreements do not end up being negotiated.

There is something much more sinister at work here, however, and it involves not just trade in goods, but trade in arms, as well.

Consider this: If Congress grants the president the power to unilaterally negotiate and contract trade agreements with foreign powers, these “executive agreements” can cover any topic that the White House considers “trade.”

That includes firearms.

If the TPA passes, then the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) would not need to be subject to senatorial debate. In fact, it would not be up for debate at all. TPA calls for a simple up or down vote on such presidentially brokered international agreements.

For those readers unfamiliar with the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, the following summary will likely shock you.

The ATT is so offensive to the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms, it is an understatement to call it unconstitutional. As The New American has reported, several provisions of this treaty significantly diminish the scope of this basic right.

First, the Arms Trade Treaty grants a monopoly over all weaponry in the hands of the very entity (government) responsible for over 300 million murders in the 20th century.

Furthermore, the treaty leaves private citizens powerless to oppose future slaughters.

An irrefutable fact of armed violence unaddressed by the UN in its gun grab is that all the murders committed by all the serial killers in history don't amount to a fraction of the brutal killings committed by "authorized state parties" using the very weapons over which they will exercise absolute control under the terms of the Arms Trade Treaty.

Article 2 of the treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns, is denied to civilians by this section of the Arms Trade Treaty.

Article 3 places the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2” within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as well.

Article 4 rounds out the regulations, also placing all “parts and components” of weapons within the scheme.

Perhaps the most immediate threat to the rights of gun owners in the Arms Trade Treaty is found in Article 5. Under the title of “General Implementation,” Article 5 mandates that all countries participating in the treaty “shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.”

This list should “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”

Article 12 adds to the record-keeping requirement, mandating that the list include “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms,” as well as the identity of the “end users” of these items.

In very clear terms, ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty by the United States would require that the U.S. government force gun owners to add their names to the national registry. Citizens would be required to report the amount and type of all firearms and ammunition they possess.

Section 4 of Article 12 of the treaty requires that the list be kept for at least 10 years.

The agreement also demands that national governments take “appropriate measures” to enforce the terms of the treaty, including civilian disarmament. If these countries can’t get this done on their own, however, Article 16 provides for UN assistance, specifically including help with the enforcement of “stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.”

In fact, a “voluntary trust fund” will be established to assist those countries that need help from UN peacekeepers or other regional forces to disarm their citizens.

Remember: Should Congress surrender to the president the “fast track” authority he wants, the Arms Trade Treaty could become the law without any input from the people’s representatives.

This should alarm those interested in preserving the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. Particularly, in light of recent actions by the U.S. representatives at the United Nations.

On May 22, the United States UN delegation joined eight other members of the Security Council in calling for “stronger cooperation in stemming the 'illicit transfer, destabilizing accumulation and misuse' of small arms and light weapons.”

Paragraph 21 of the U.S.-approved resolution calls on member states “to consider ratifying or acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty as soon as possible and encourages States, intergovernmental, regional and subregional organizations that are in a position to do so to render assistance in capacity-building to enable States Parties to fulfil [sic] and implement the Treaty’s obligations.”

In other words, the United States UN representatives (and other member states who have not ratified the ATT) claim that people's representatives in Congress don't need to bother with the pesky process of ratifying the UN’s disarmament mandate; the federal government could simply accede to it.

Accede. That sounds suspiciously like something that could be accomplished easily and “as soon as possible” should the TPA be handed to President Obama.

Finally, paragraph 23 of the Security Council resolution calls for the “implementation of national reporting provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty by the States Parties.”

As indicated above, Article 12 of the ATT requires “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms,” as well as the identity of the “end users” of these weapons.

Senators from both major political parties insist that there is nothing new in the Trade Promotion Authority bill and that the powers granted in it to the president are necessary to “improve economic growth.”

The truth is, however, that included in the package is the power to expand the president’s executive order power to include the authority to “accede” to unconstitutional international agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/21071-tpa-backdoor-to-enforcement-of-u-n-s-arms-trade-treaty?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_campaign=ddf1d41ee3-The_Editors_Top_Picks_3_12_143_12_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8ca494f2d2-ddf1d41ee3-289802669

[Sigaba]

FWIW, the text of the UN ATT is available at https://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/English7.pdf

IMO, the treaty does not support the interpretation offered above.

My $0.02.

[sinjefe]

Contrary to what the media would have you believe, a treaty cannot supersede the constitution

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/treaties.htm

[MR2]

Treason Perpetrated against the People.

[Stobey]

Senate votes "yes" on giving the Usurper-in-Chief "fast track" authority.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/24/fast-track-trade-measure-sought-by-obama-wins-final-approval-in-senate/

:mad::mad::mad:

[JJ_BPK]

Has anyone read & figured out what the hell the TPT is or says???

Everyone is bitching about, yet nobody knows what it is???

:munchin

[(1VB)compforce]

Has anyone read & figured out what the hell the TPT is or says???

Everyone is bitching about, yet nobody knows what it is???

:munchin

Here's a pretty good analysis of the known parts of TPP (wikileaks published a chunk of the agreement)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/business/unpacking-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal.html?_r=0

Here are the parts that bother me:
We're signing on to an agreement that removes all tariffs or disincentives for services across borders. (TPP TISA)

Then we're going to establish government funded retraining for workers displaced by the opening of trade. (TAA)

Oh, and we're going to open the borders for the free movement of people across national borders as part of the agreement. (TPP, TISA, TAA)

So basically, we're going to remove the thought of illegal immigrants entirely (they're just looking for jobs, right?) Then we're going to make it easier for companies to outsource to other signatory countries (asian countries, india, and potentially china). Finally, those of us that are still working will be taxed to pay for the retraining and support of all the American people that got displaced by the outsourcing. As if having to compete with all the H1-B visas in STEM positions wasn't bad enough already that more than half of American STEM graduates are working in fields other than STEM. Oh, and wages have been flat for those fields (which I work in) since Bill Clinton was President

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/09/15/stem-graduates-cant-find-jobs
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/10/census-stem-graduates/12492079/

The jury is still out on TPA (fast track). I think it's potentially a good thing since it removes the ability to attach riders to bills making their way through Congress, but I also see big problems when the Dems gain control again and the Republicans find out that they can't stop the simple majority vote, which was part of it. 60 votes are no longer needed for the passage of trade bills, now a simple majority works.

Probably the most dangerous part is that it is written as a "living document" meaning that it can be rewritten (unilaterally by the President) at any time without having to go back to Congress for ratification as long as the contents are trade related. There are so many opportunities for abuse inherent in that concept that I shudder to think of where we may be by the end of Obama's term. What if he decides to agree to limit guns as a part of the treaty? Anyone living in Washington DC can tell you that the process to obtain a firearm can be made so onerous as to be practically impossible without violating the Constitution. What if that process was "negotiated" as part of a trade deal and inserted into the "living document" of TPP? It wouldn't have to go back to Congress for ratification, it would become the law of the land.

Get ready, I think we are in for a VERY rocky next few years.

I truly hope I am reading it all wrong.

[Team Sergeant]

Get ready, I think we are in for a VERY rocky next few years.



You thinking the last 7 years wasn't rocky enough?

The only thing that makes me happy about the TPP is SEIU are wetting their collective panties. ;)