I agree with you for the most part, Ravenman. I’m not saying we should stop the talks, nor that we’re going to get bad legislation forced on us from foreign parties.
The issue, as I see it, is mostly the same as domestic legislation, where big businesses will buy laws favorable to themselves and unfavorable towards competition, the environment and consumers. The only real difference is that Congress debates on the record, and are answerable to their constituents. But large corporations have even fewer checks on their power during this type of treaty negotiation, making transparency all the more important.
A trade treaty is not a diplomatic negotiation. We’re not signing peace accords here. It’s basically just legislation that is being drafted in secret, without public input. If it works well for international law, why not take the same approach domestically? Would you be okay with Congressional debates, bills and votes being kept secret until the laws are passed? If not, why is it okay for international treaties?
I’m not dodging it, I specifically said that the view that this is going to be crammed down anyone’s gullet in a short period of time is utterly ignorant of how other trade agreements have been concluded.
First of all, there is no Fast Track authority today. That law expired several years ago, and would first have to be reauthorized for the TPP to be submitted in accordance with those procedures.
Second, even trade agreements that were negotiated and approved under Fast Track seemed to have ample time for public hearing between the time they were signed and the time Congress approved them. I already referenced the Colombia agreement, which was signed in 2006 and became law in 2011. There’s also the South Korea agreement, which was signed in 2007, revised in 2010, and became law the following year. CAFTA took about 14 months from signature to law (note I misspoke earlier when I said this agreement failed, I meant FTAA).
If Congress wants to pass Fast Track again and tie its own hands with respect to offering amendments, that’s their choice to do. I see both sides of that argument. But your statement to the effect that the agreement (if it is finalized) is going to become law under this authority before anyone knows what’s in it is, again, utterly ignorant of how the process actually works.
This kind of confuses me. Congress cannot amend the body of the treaty, at all, or they are not ratifying the negotiated agreement. Parties to a treaty are not at liberty to unilaterally revise its terms without the other party(s) consent, which means more negotiations. They only amendments congress can make would be like those peripheral riders that get stuck onto about every bill that gets passed.
Trade agreements are generally in the form of treaties for most countries, however, in the United States they are considered as laws. If TPP were signed tomorrow, Obama would submit a bill to Congress that encompasses the agreement. Congress would have every right under the Constitution to amend that legislation, even though doing so would renege on compromises reached by US and foreign negotiators.
Fast Track procedures, if they were to be renewed, would bypass that issue by allowing the bill to come up only for an up-or-down vote by both houses of Congress.
This is why I see the logic of Fast Track even though I’m not a huge fan of it: to my understanding, most other countries treat the trade agreement like a treaty that can’t be amended, so it’s kind of more fair for the US to treat it that way, too; but it also kind of sucks that there could be very bad provisions in the agreement that Congress couldn’t address with amendments.