I am puzzled by Rep. Jared Polis. He has concerns about the “transparency” of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP ) negoiating process and the agreement’s impact on Internet freedom. But he can’t decide whether he is for or against fast track authorization. This is sort of strange.
Let me explain. Fast track is a rarely-used parliamentary maneuver which requires an up-or-down vote within 90 days with a maximum of 20 hours of debate and no amendments allowed.
How can Polis get his questions answered about the TPP within the time frame of fast track? The TPP is lengthy and complex. With fast track, you don’t have time to read and reflect. You can’t have full public discussion and debate on the floor.
The TPP is being secretly negotiated by the United States and 11 other nations. They are “harmonizing” regulations of corporations which were designed to protect workers, the environment, consumers and the economy. It would be great if they harmonized by strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. However, leaked TPP documents and previous “free trade” agreements indicate the opposite, that this is a race to the bottom driven by bogus trickle-down economic theories.
Last January, President Obama asked Congress for fast track authority. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) turned him down. But after the November elections, the Republicans retook the Senate and the new Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, announced that he is eager to work with Obama to pass the TPP and similar agreements.
The TPP has been under negotiation for six years. Members of Congress were denied access to the text for years but now can read it under strict conditions. When they go into a room to look at it, they can’t take pen or paper or take notes. They are sworn to secrecy. Since the document is still being negotiated, the text could change the next day.
Rep. Polis has read some of the pact but declines to say anything. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Florida) has examined the text and has had plenty to say. “Having seen what I’ve seen, I would characterize this as a gross abrogation of American sovereignty,” Grayson said. “And I would further characterize it as a punch in the face to the middle class of America… But I’m not allowed to tell you why!”
Grayson said that the agreement would be very favorable to multinational corporations, but has extremely detrimental implications for the public interest in many respects.
“It’s all about tying the hands of democratically elected governments, and shunting authority over to the non-elected for the benefit of multinational corporations,” Grayson said. “It’s an assault on democratic government.”
U.S. trade policy changed with the rise of corporate globalization. It used to involve rivalries between different industrial sectors but now involves a stealthy slow-motion corporate coup against hard-won progressive advances. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was the game changer.
NAFTA and the later agreements were supported by the leadership of the Republicans and the Democrats. They were opposed by a majority of Democrats in Congress as well as many grassroots Democrats (particularly in the labor and environmental movements).
A smaller number of Republicans opposed these agreements. Colorado’s former Republican Senator Hank Brown is a curious case. When the Clintonite/Republican coalition asked Congress to approve a huge worldwide expansion of NAFTA called the World Trade Organization (WTO), Brown was inclined to support the legislation.
Then Ralph Nader challenged any member of Congress to read the 25,000 page agreement and answer 10 questions posed by an independent journalist. He offered to give $10,000 to the member’s favorite charity if he answered the questions correctly. Hank Brown was the only one to take up the challenge. He scored 100 on the test and voted against the agreement. “Anyone who thinks this agreement expands free trade,” he said, “has not read it.”
That’s a problem with these deals. How many people read them? A survey of economists who supported NAFTA revealed that only one in nine actually had read the treaty itself. That’s why Polis should vote against fast track. It would give him a chance to read the whole thing and evaluate it.
He needs to stop being coy and tell us what side of the global class war he’s on.
Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com
This opinion column does not necessarily reflect the views of Boulder Weekly.
