Congressman Polis’ nose is growing by the day. The web of mistruths, halftruths and outright fabrications he is using to justify his support for fast tracking the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP) — a secretive trade deal that would expand fracking, destroy jobs and erode local democracy — is astounding. We believe it is essential to correct the multiple factual errors in Congressman Polis’ recent and misleading guest commentary [RE: “Towards a smarter, more progressive approach to trade,” Guest Commentary, May 14) regarding the TPP.
Fast Track is a legislative procedure that surrenders meaningful Congressional oversight of trade deals. It allows the Executive Branch to negotiate and sign trade deals and then present the finished product to the Congress for a take-it-or-leave-it vote. Congressman Polis refused to endorse last year’s bill, but he contends that the legislation introduced in April is new and improved Fast Track, which he (and he alone) calls “Smart Tracks.” But the bill he now supports is substantially identical to the flawed 2014 Fast Track and even the 2002 Bush-era Fast Track — including some of the provisions that he contends are brand new.
Congressman Polis is heartily supporting legislation written by conservative Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and former Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Senator Ron Wyden is the only Democratic cosponsor in the Senate and it is bitterly opposed by progressive stalwarts like Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).
The Hatch-Wyden-Ryan improvements are mere legislative window dressing that do little to ameliorate Fast Track’s fundamental structural flaws. Senator Wyden’s counterpart in the House of Representatives, Congressman Sandy Levin (D-Mich.), ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, considered the dean of trade policy in the Democratic caucus said that Fast Track “puts Congress in the back seat and greases the skids for an up-or-down vote after the fact. Real Congressional power is not at the end of the process, it is right now when the critical outstanding issues are being negotiated.”
But let’s examine some of the provisions that Rep. Polis deceptively highlights as significant improvements:
First, Congressman Polis extolls an alleged escape hatch for bad trade deals that provides a “meaningful way for Congress to ‘turn off ’ bad trade deals.” This opt-out clause is purely symbolic. It does not allow the entire Congress to vote to reject a trade deal under Fast Track unless the trade committees (the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees) first vote to nix the deal. These venues are unabashedly pro-trade and will never vote against a trade deal, which means that the full Congress won’t ever get a chance to prevent a trade deal being considered under Fast Track.
Second, Congressman Polis promises that the new Fast Track ensures that any trade deal would have enforceable labor and environmental provisions “at their core.” But the language on labor and environmental enforcement is largely identical to the 2014 and 2002 Fast Track. Both these prior bills contained the feel-good language to “promote respect for worker rights,” uphold “core labor standards” and “protect and preserve the environment.”
These pretty words have proved to be pretty worthless when it comes to actually enforcing labor and environmental standards. The reason is that the language is not binding on the White House, so it can present a trade deal that fails to ensure that trade partners uphold international labor standards or enforce international environmental agreements.
The current Fast Track lacks the stronger provisions included in some recent trade deals designed to allow the United States to bring trade disputes to enforce environmental and labor promises. Unfortunately, these measures have not succeeded in ensuring our trading partners actually uphold their own labor and environmental laws. Countries have been able to ignore even gross violations of labor and environmental laws without running afoul of trade deals. Even the Obama administration has failed to doggedly pursue environmental complaints under the Peru trade agreement and violence against union leaders in Colombia under that trade deal.
Third, Congressman Polis promises that “no trade deal can undermine federal law, state law, local law or our national sovereignty.” He has received assurances from the White House, but so have the rest of us. We are unwilling to suspend disbelief in the face of demonstrable evidence that trade deals can and do undermine U.S. laws.
This month, the United States lost another round of a trade disputes challenging our country of origin labeling laws for beef and pork. Consumers overwhelmingly want to know the origin of their food and farmers want to be able to tell them, but the World Trade Organization ruled that these commonsense rules are actually a trade barrier. The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has recommended that Congress repeal or weaken the labeling law to obey the ruling of trade bureaucrats. This capitulation to trade deals on food labeling is not an aberration; the United States has weakened its dolphin safe tuna labeling rules, fuel economy standards and Clean Air Act rules to comply with trade disputes.
Finally, Congressman Polis insists that the trade deal will not give special rights to foreign corporations. But leaked TPP investment provisions do give foreign companies the ability to challenge federal, state or local regula tions that frustrate their business plans. If a local community bans fracking, a foreign drilling firm could demand financial compensation for the money it planned to earn from fracking because the new environmental protections “indirectly expropriate” their profits.
This is not some law school hypothetical case. A U.S. incorporated drilling company is challenging the Canadian province of Quebec’s moratorium on fracking under a similar investment provision under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz described these polluter protection measures as an “invidious and most dishonest” part of free trade agreements. And they are special rights for foreign firms, as efforts by domestic firms to hold environmental, public health and consumer protections hostage to lawsuit extortion were blocked during the Clinton administration.
Congressman Polis is putting lipstick on a pig. The current Fast Track legislation to jam the TPP through Congress is not “smart,” it is a retread of the same process that was used to pass NAFTA and several other free trade deals that have jeopardized workers, the environment and our communities. Calling the bill “Smart Tracks” is a Polis marketing gimmick, like calling the privatization of social security “entitlement reform” to conceal a reactionary agenda from a legitimately skeptical public.
Why employ these euphemisms? Because Congressman Polis knows there is overwhelming, broad-based opposition to fast tracking the TPP: Nationally, over 2,000 labor, environmental, consumer and even tea party groups have expressed their opposition to this bill. Literally thousands of Congressman Polis’ own constituents have emailed, called, written and lobbied him to oppose this bill. For the past year-and-a-half, Congressman Polis has dissembled his true intentions on Fast Track and now engages in rhetorical gymnastics to justify his support for this deeply unpopular idea.
Why does Congressman Polis insist that Fast Track for the TPP is a good idea, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Perhaps to further his admitted interest in climbing the leadership ladder in the Democratic Party. We should read his behavior as a calculated political decision: he is willing to toss workers, the environment and his constituents’ opinions overboard to curry favor with President Obama and the multinational corporations that played a significant roll in drafting the TPP. And voila! These friends can pave the way to ever-higher levels of power within the corporate wing of the Democratic party.
This is not the first time Congressman Polis has sold out his constituents. Barely 10 months ago, the Congressman cut an 11th-hour, backroom deal with Governor Hickenlooper to strip Coloradans of their right to vote to protect themselves from fracking. Then, the Congressman assured us that with the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Oil and Gas Task Force: “Citizens will have a seat at the negotiating table. They will be able to negotiate directly to protect their property rights, home values, clean water and air quality with the oil and gas industry.” Today the Task Force’s own members admit it failed to enact any meaningful changes; the legislature failed as well. In the intervening 10 months, thousands of new wells have been permitted next to homes, schools and public parks. Congressman Polis’ betrayal did nothing to stop fracking in our state.
Fool us once, shame on you, Congressman Polis. Fool us twice, shame on us. Based upon words, actions and deeds, Coloradans cannot trust Congressman Polis to protect his constituents’ interests on stopping fracking, creating jobs, protecting the environment or safeguarding our local democracy from the TPP. It’s time for us to start referring to him as Congressman Pinnochio.
Sam Schabacker is the Western Region Organizing Director for Food & Water Watch.
Mike Roque is the Executive Director of Colorado Progressive Coalition.
This opinion column does not necessarily reflect the views of Boulder Weekly.
