By
Larry Laibson

There are many major issues and questions on both Trade Priorities and Accountability Act (TPP) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). There is confusion of what these entail and what is actually being voted on in Congress.  Are there Constitutional issues regarding “Powers” and responsibilities?  Is TPP really a Treaty? What does it cover and why is there such extensive secrecy?  Will America’ Sovereignty be affected?

Congress is voting on TPA which outlines guidelines for TPP’s negotiation by the Executive Branch and provides provisions to give President Obama “fast track” approval of TPP if and when it is brought to Congress for passage.

-Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA. This is also known as “fast track” authority because it gives the president the ability to negotiate a deal that will receive only an up-or-down vote in Congress. Without fast track, Congress can amend the specific terms of the deal when it gets the final TPP.

-Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP.  This is the actual trade deal that President Obama is hoping to secure with a number of countries, including Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. China is not currently included, but recent overtures by the Administration are to add them in the near term.

It is critical that our Congressional members read and fully understand the specifics of TPP before voting on TPA.  This is not occurring.

TPP is approximately 1,000 pages. Only a few of TPP’s chapters are about traditional International Trade.  The others are about regulating the Internet, labor conditions, health care, banking etal. TPP also provides for significant immigration to the U.S. from TPP Countries.

Senator Sessions, in his letter to President Obama, points out many concerns on TPP including its creation of a new transnational governance structure known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission.  The details of this new governance commission are extremely broad and have the earmarks of a nascent European Union, with many similarities. This new transnational commission would be chartered with a ‘Living Agreement’ clause which would give it the authority to amend the congressionally approved agreement to add new members, and to issue new or revised regulations impacting labor, immigration, environmental, and commercial policy.

Under fast track, many feel that Congress cedes its Constitutional power to the Executive Branch.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution addresses Congress’s Power: “The Congress shall have the Power…to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,”

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution addresses the President’s Power: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,…”

Per Article I and II of the Constitution, is TPP a “Treaty”? While TPA sets guidelines to the Executive Branch to negotiate international commerce agreements, does fast track’s “up and down vote” effectively take away Congress’s Constitutional responsibility on something as pervasive and changeable as TPP?

TPA is an arrangement between the U.S. Executive and Legislative Branches, under which Congress agrees to hold a timely, up-or-down vote (i.e., no amendments) on future trade agreements in exchange for the president’s agreeing to follow certain negotiating objectives set by Congress and to consult with the legislative branch before, during, and after TPP negotiations. In essence, Congress agrees to streamline the approval process as long as the president negotiates agreements that it likes.

Under fast-track, Congress transfers its authority to the executive and agrees to give up several of its most basic powers including the power to write legislation, the power to amend legislation, the power to fully consider legislation on the floor, the power to keep debate open until Senate cloture is invoked, and the constitutional requirement that treaties receive a two-thirds vote.

Historically, Fast-track authority doesn’t apply just to the current TPA.  In the past, it has spanned presidencies, beginning in 1974 and lasting until the Clinton administration.  It also existed during parts of both terms of George W. Bush’s presidency.  From the president’s standpoint, fast-track authority is critical to negotiating agreements because he can negotiate in good faith — what he says to his negotiating partners he’s confident will be part of the final deal.
In May 2015 Senate S. 995 “Trade Priorities & Accountability Act (TPA)” was passed. Key elements:

(1) TPA outlines Congressional guidance to the President on trade policy priorities and negotiating objectives.

(2) TPA establishes Congressional requirements for the Administration to notify and consult with Congress, with the private sector and other stakeholders and with the public during the negotiations of trade agreements.

(3) TPA defines the terms, conditions and procedures under which Congress allows the Administration to enter into trade agreements, and sets the procedures for Congressional consideration of bills to implement the agreements.

Both Georgia Senators Isakson and Perdue voted “Yes” on S. 995 with Senator Perdue’s comment, “At least sixty days before President Obama can sign any trade agreement; he must publish the full text so that the public can see it.  This ensures an unprecedented level of transparency for the American people and gives Georgians a chance to review any trade agreement directly.

Further, if President Obama does not follow the strict procedures put in place, Congress can completely strip his negotiating authority. Ultimately, TPA keeps Congress in control of all trade deals and holds the Obama Administration accountable every step of the way.”
The House is considering its associated TPA Bill to similarly give the President “fast track.”

Are the Georgia Senators correct in their assessment of TPA/TPP?
I do not believe so based on two factors. First, the number of outstanding questions and issues with President Obama’s past objectives, performance and lack of transparency, and secrecy of TPP specifically.  Second, TPP is clouded in excessive secrecy with revealed portions being of significant concerns.

My concerns do not address pros/cons of International Trade Agreements.  I generally favor such agreements if done correctly which includes a more critical approach from our Congressional members.

Typically, Republicans favor “Free Trade” and Democrats oppose it.  Yes, President Clinton favored and passed NAFTA but he was never as far left as Obama.  Now, Obama has suddenly reversed in major fashion, going against his own Base and Party and for the first time in office teaming up with GOP in Congress to get the votes to pass TPP.
I am extremely skeptical on TPP and do not trust President Obama’s “good intentions” to warrant a fast track, up and down vote due to:
-President Obama’s duplicitousness, lack of transparency, history of downplaying America’s exceptionalism and world leadership, persistent characteristics of hidden agendas, lack of openness and transparency, and “you have to pass this to see what is in it” approach
-TPP’s extremely tight secrecy and requirements to read the 1,000 page Bill behind closed doors and signing non-disclosure agreements legislation before voting on it, coupled with the apparent large numbers of Congressional members who have not acknowledged even reading the Bill before voting on is (aka “Obamacare” ).

Many TPA opponents feel that there is essentially no way to stop a trade deal once it has been fast-tracked. Since fast track was created in the Richard Nixon administration, not one trade deal that started on fast track has been thwarted.  As such, a vote for TPA is a vote for TPP. Many in Congress appear ready to vote on TPA with only a very few admitting to having read TPP.

Some general Free Trade supporters are concerned about the “Lessons-Learned” from the Obama Administration on lofty past promises and the resultant opposite results.  On TPP “the devil is in in the details” which often differ from lofty goals used to describe the deal; especially with President Obama. TPP is being called “Obamatrade” by many reminiscent of his past “you have to pass it to see what is in it” “Affordable Care Act” or Obamacare.

In a recent letter, Senator Sessions asked that President Obama to release details of TPP, including its Commission, so appropriate Congressional evaluation and debate could entail.

I strongly concur in this request as too much is being hidden by a most secretive President whose real intentions are usually questionable and open for debate.

Why hasn’t President Obama or any of the TPP supporters provided more of the Bill’s details which many feel could be covered at a level that would not hurt any of the supposed privacy of the negotiations which are still ongoing?  This lack of transparency should be a warning sign.

Although President Obama proudly stated in 2009 “This will be the most transparent Administration in our Country’s history”, he has progressed in the totally opposite direction. Even Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted to his Agencies have been stalled for years and it was recently discovered that FOIA requests had to be staffed with the White House to get their assessment on whether or how to honor.

In conclusion, Free Trade Agreements in today’s World Economy are needed to facilitate multi-national commerce.

However, TPP is being pushed by a President who has so clearly demonstrated unconstitutional attributes and actions in his 6 years in office exercising his of apparent goals and objectives which often appear aimed to “marginalize” America’s greatness and sovereignty. Added to this concern is TPPs almost total secrecy and covert portions going far beyond “Trade.”

In a very strange scenario, top Republicans are joining select Democrats to support Obama’s push for TPP, it’s highly secretive provisions and the President’s ability to make unilateral decisions on many parts of it when it passes. Both Senator McConnell and Representative Boehner have backed TPA with Representative Boehner working with Representative Pelosi to amass necessary votes from their blocs. Have any of them read the TPP?

Support of TPA by our legislators is premature unless more details are provided to allow full and open debate commensurate with the passing of NAFTA in the 1990s.

Congress should follow the Constitution and debate trade bills under “regular order,” not unique Fast Track procedures, especially while President Obama is in office.

Our Legislators should vote “No” on TPA.

TPP should be revisited with more details and transparency by the new President in 2016 who hopefully will have an open and transparent Administration with America’s interests the number one priority.

I challenge all contenders for election in 2016, be it for the White House or Congress, to address and take a stand on pros and cons of TPP and TPA.