REPEAT Politically INCORRECT Cartoon
What’s In It?
URL of the Original Posting Site: http://conservativebyte.com/2015/06/whats-in-it
For those of you that did not know, have not been following this tyranny, or you might have forgotten, I offer the following explanation.
Fast track (trade); from Wikipedia
The fast track negotiating authority for trade agreements is the authority of the President of the United States to negotiate international agreements that Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster. Also called trade promotion authority (TPA) since 2002, fast track negotiating authority is a temporary and controversial power granted to the President by Congress. The authority was in effect from 1975 to 1994, pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, and from 2002 to 2007 by the Trade Act of 2002. Although it expired for new agreements on July 1, 2007, it continued to apply to agreements already under negotiation until they were eventually passed into law in 2011. In 2012, the Obama administration began seeking renewal of the authority.
In October 2011, the Congress and President Obama enacted into law the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, the South Korea–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and the Panama–U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement using fast track rules, all of which the George W. Bush administration signed before the deadline.[10]
In early 2012, the Obama administration indicated that renewal of the authority is a requirement for the conclusion of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, which have been undertaken as if the authority were still in effect.[11] In July 2013, Michael Froman, the newly confirmed U.S. Trade Representative, renewed efforts to obtain Congressional reinstatement of “fast track” authority. At nearly the same time, Senator Elizabeth Warren questioned Froman about the prospect of a secretly negotiated, binding international agreement such as TPP that might turn out to supersede U.S. wage, safety, and environmental laws.[12] Other legislators expressed concerns about foreign currency manipulation, food safety laws, state-owned businesses, market access for small businesses, access to pharmaceutical products, and online commerce.[10]
In early 2014, Senator Max Baucus and Congressman Dave Camp introduced the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014,[13] which sought to reauthorize trade promotion authority and establish a number of priorities and requirements for trade agreements.[14] Its sponsors called it a “vital tool” in connection with negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and trade negotiations with the EU.[13] Critics said the bill could detract from “transparency and accountability”. Sander Levin, who is the ranking Democratic member on the House Ways and Means committee, said he would make an alternative proposal.[15]
Procedure[edit]
If the President transmits a fast track trade agreement to Congress, then the majority leaders of the House and Senate or their designees must introduce the implementing bill submitted by the President on the first day on which their House is in session. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(c)(1).) Senators and Representatives may not amend the President’s bill, either in committee or in the Senate or House. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(d).) The committees to which the bill has been referred have 45 days after its introduction to report the bill, or be automatically discharged, and each House must vote within 15 days after the bill is reported or discharged. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(1).)
In the likely case that the bill is a revenue bill (as tariffs are revenues), the bill must originate in the House (see U.S. Const., art I, sec. 7), and after the Senate received the House-passed bill, the Finance Committee would have another 15 days to report the bill or be discharged, and then the Senate would have another 15 days to pass the bill. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(2).) On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(f)-(g).) Thus the entire Congressional consideration could take no longer than 90 days.
Scope[edit]
Fast track agreements were enacted as “congressional-executive agreements” (CEAs), which must be approved by a simple majority in both chambers of Congress.
Although Congress cannot explicitly transfer its powers to the executive branch, the 1974 trade promotion authority had the effect of delegating power to the executive, minimizing consideration of the public interest, and limiting the legislature’s influence over the bill to an up or down vote:[18]
- It allowed the executive branch to select countries for, set the substance of, negotiate and then sign trade agreements without prior congressional approval.
- It allowed the executive branch to negotiate trade agreements covering more than just tariffs and quotas.
- It established a committee system, comprising 700 industry representatives appointed by the president, to serve as advisors to the negotiations. Throughout trade talks, these individuals had access to confidential negotiating documents. Most members of Congress and the public had no such access, and there were no committees for consumer, health, environmental or other public interests.
- It empowered the executive branch to author an agreement’s implementing legislation without Congressional input.
- It required the executive branch to notify Congress 90 days before signing and entering into an agreement, but allowed unlimited time for the implementing legislation to be submitted.
- It forced a floor vote on the agreement and its implementing legislation in both chambers of Congress; the matters could not “die in committee.”
- It eliminated several floor procedures, including Senate unanimous consent, normal debate and cloture rules, and the ability to amend the legislation.
- It prevented filibuster by limiting debate to 20 hours in each chamber.
- It elevated the Special Trade Representative (STR) to the cabinet level, and required the Executive Office to house the agency.
The 1979 version of the authority changed the name of the STR to the U.S. Trade Representative.[18]
The 2002 version of the authority created an additional requirement for 90-day notice to Congress before negotiations could begin.[18]
Arguments in favor[edit]
- Helps pass trade agreements: According to AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall L. Stephenson, Trade Promotion Authority is “critical to completing new trade agreements that have the potential to unleash U.S. economic growth and investment”. Jason Furman, chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, also said “the United States might become less competitive globally if it disengaged from seeking further trade openings: ‘If you’re not in an agreement—that trade will be diverted from us to someone else—we will lose out to another country'”.[19]
- Congress is allowed more say and members are shielded: According to I.M. Destler of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, fast track “has effectively bridged the division of power between the two branches. It gives executive branch (USTR) negotiators needed credibility to conclude trade agreements by assuring other nations’ representatives that Congress won’t rework them; it guarantees a major Congressional role in trade policy while reducing members’ vulnerability to special interests”.[20]
- Assurance for foreign governments: According to President Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese III, “it is extremely difficult for any U.S. President to negotiate significant trade deals if he cannot assure other nations that Congress will refrain from adding numerous amendments and conditions that must then be taken back to the negotiating table”. The very nature of Trade Promotion Authority requires Congress to vote on the agreements before they can take effect, meaning that without TPA, “those agreements might never even be negotiated”.[21]
Arguments against[edit]
- Unconstitutional: Groups opposed to Trade Promotion Authority claim that it places too much power in the executive branch, “allowing the president to unilaterally select partner countries for ‘trade’ pacts, decide the agreements’ contents, and then negotiate and sign the agreements—all before Congress has a vote on the matter. Normal congressional committee processes are forbidden, meaning that the executive branch is empowered to write lengthy legislation on its own with no review or amendments.”[22]
- Lack of transparency: Democratic members of Congress and general right-to-know internet groups are among those opposed to trade fast track on grounds of a lack of transparency. Such Congressmen have complained that fast track forces “members to jump over hurdles to see negotiation texts and blocks staffer involvement. In 2012, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) complained that corporate lobbyists were given easy access while his office was being stymied, and even introduced protest legislation requiring more congressional input.”[23]
SUMMARY:
- Imperial President Obama has kept the contents of his bill “EXTREMELY HIGH SECRECY”, allowing NO ONE, NOT EVEN HIS OWN MARXIST/SOCIALIST/ PARTY.
- After a lot of screaming by Congress, and the Senate (YES, even from his own MARXIST/SOCIALIST/ PARTY), he would allow one person at a time, without cell phone, recording device or note taking material, to enter a top secret room, under guard, to read the bill.
- Imperial President Obama wants Congress and the Senate to vote to approve the bill, BEFORE THEY ALL CAN FIND OUT WHAT IS IN IT!!!!!!!! Sound familiar?????
Now you can better understand Branco’s humor in his cartoon. Do we really want a tyrant like Imperial President Obama to have unfettered trade agreement approval and the safeguards of the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES destroyed?
Another Leaked Trade Agreement, Another Reason to Oppose Fast Track
Posted by: 
David Singh Grewal, Associate Professor of Law, Yale Law School 06/04/2015 Updated: 06/04/2015 4:59 pm EDT
URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-singh-grewal/tisa-leak_b_7514314.html
Yesterday, WikiLeaks released 17 documents from a little known trade agreement now under negotiation. The Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) will cover services ranging from professional work to e-commerce and financial services among the United States, the European Union, and 23 other countries. As with other new trade agreements — notably, the two massive trade deals currently under review with our Asian and European allies — the TiSA negotiations remain classified. And as with those other trade deals, the negotiating texts — which reveal the positions that our government advocates for at the deal-making stage — are to be kept classified for five years after the agreement has been finalized, whether it comes into force or fails.
Services are big business in the new global economy, comprising an estimated 75% of the U.S. economy. And unlike cross-border trade in goods — largely covered by the WTO — the governance of the trade in services is more haphazard and much less long-standing. The WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a complicated agreement with various opt-in and opt-out clauses, which allow WTO members a degree of autonomy in deciding which services areas they commit to open to foreign competition. One rationale for this degree of autonomy — which is unlike the more general discipline on the trade in goods — is that services aren’t simply comparable “goods” to be traded. They are the product of complex national regulatory regimes and implicate important legislative decisions. To a first order of approximation at least, a barrel of crude oil is a barrel of crude oil, but what banking or architecture or e-commerce is varies widely across national contexts.
The TiSA represents, in essence, a first step in crafting a new global regime for governing the cross-border flow of services. A great deal of the work that any services agreement must do is definitional, since services can be amorphous and are often controlled by national licensing schemes or one kind or another. Liberalizing the trade in services thus runs up against the difficulty of defining when a national law constitutes improper “discrimination” against foreign competitors in a service sector. As might be imagined, liberalizing agreements often have a deregulatory effect, as different national licensing and oversight regimes are harmonized downwards. And since important services from broadcasting to utilities to health care are provisioned publicly in a wide range of countries, these trade agreements can have a privatizing effect, requiring countries to open sectors to private competition or to eliminate government support.
In the case of TiSA, academics and activists studying the leaked drafts have already noted some of this deregulatory and privatizing pressure. Longstanding systems of public service provision in areas ranging from transport to broadcasting to utilities look likely to be come under new scrutiny. Financial regulations and safeguards — including Dodd-Frank — may be further eroded under this agreement, under the guise of financial service liberalization. Equally worrying are the negotiations covering e-commerce, which reveal U.S. efforts to oppose the “data localization” that privacy advocates support as a buffer against surveillance. Other points of concern will surely emerge over the coming days from the leaked drafts.
But as we take in each new revelation, we must not lose sight of the broader context. The Obama administration’s proposed trade agreements — the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and now TiSA — are not really about “free trade” as conventionally understood. They represent instead the inauguration of a new form of global governance, which proceeds under the mantle of trade liberalization. What these agreements deliver are new forms of cross-border regulation, often with sweeping and understudied impacts on the domestic economy. The regulation of our utilities, our roads, our health-care systems, our banks, our media now comes through a mechanism developed in the post-war era to address high tariff rates.
And there is one overriding fact to bear in mind over the coming week. The same “fast track” authorization that will soon be debated in the House of Representatives doesn’t just concern the controversial TPP and TTIP. Later this year or next, it will be used to provide special, expedited review for TiSA as well. For fast track — now called “Trade Promotion Authority”–will last for six years. Thus, after Obama’s term is finished, through the next Presidential administration, and until 2021, the special treatment decided on this coming week will be used to push through future “trade” agreements that may address any activity that crosses a border — which is to say, almost anything of importance in today’s world.
What the latest WikiLeaks release reminds us is that fast track won’t just be used to pass the TPP. It will also be used to pass the TTIP, the TiSA, and future agreements not yet leaked — perhaps not even yet imagined. If the House authorizes fast track next week, we should expect even more “government by trade agreement” over the coming years. Behind closed doors, in the offices of lobbying firms and corporate boardrooms, law firms and foreign ministries, smart people working for special interests will be empowered to reshape the world, through secret negotiations, and under the banner of “free trade.”
The author is an Associate Professor at Yale Law School, where he teaches international trade law.
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.