From my colleague and fellow CPA Board member Michael Stumo--Dan
All:
Here is a valuable resource for those going through the text of the new Fast Track bill to determine whether or not it’s any better than the Baucus/Hatch/Camp version that was rejected last year.
From CPA’s perspective, it is not. No balanced trade. Vague/toothless currency language. Nothing new on foreign border taxes. Insufficient language on state owned enterprises. ISDS/global court system provisions don’t address treaty forum shopping by foreign companies or provide for a rationale as to why the nation’s court systems are not good enough. Etc.
No analysis as to why past agreements worsened our trade performance, and thus no corrections for past failures.
No increased role for Congress. No ability to rein in executive branch which does what it wants. No addressing the fact that they will be merely ratifying past executive negotiations rather than guiding future ones. No curtailment of excessive designation of negotiating text as “classified” at the whim of the USTR, without a solid national security rationale.
Instead - export opportunity/trade distortion/regulatory harmonization happy talk.
✚✚✚
New TPA Bill Nearly Identical to Last Year’s Failed Effort
Side-by-Side Comparison Shows Very Little Changed from Baucus-Hatch-Camp TPA
The TPA bill introduced yesterday is almost identical to the bill introduced in January 2014 by Sens. Baucus and Hatch and Rep. Camp.
See for yourself. This side-by-side comparison of the two bills shows that the legislation essentially changed in only two areas: it includes a negotiating objective on human rights, and it includes what authors describe as a third process to turn off fast track, but only after the agreement is finalized, and even though Congress already holds the authority to change its own rules.
Here’s the bill s side by side, 2014 (Voted Down) vs 2015:
http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/Side-by-side%20TPA%20Comparison.pdf
Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin yesterday also released a detailed document laying out how the new TPA bill falls short – just as last year’s version did as well.
Michael Stumo, CEO
Coalition for a Prosperous America
main: 202.688.5145
direct: 413.717.0184
cpa@prosperousamerica.org
www.prosperousamerica.org
All:
Here is a valuable resource for those going through the text of the new Fast Track bill to determine whether or not it’s any better than the Baucus/Hatch/Camp version that was rejected last year.
From CPA’s perspective, it is not. No balanced trade. Vague/toothless currency language. Nothing new on foreign border taxes. Insufficient language on state owned enterprises. ISDS/global court system provisions don’t address treaty forum shopping by foreign companies or provide for a rationale as to why the nation’s court systems are not good enough. Etc.
No analysis as to why past agreements worsened our trade performance, and thus no corrections for past failures.
No increased role for Congress. No ability to rein in executive branch which does what it wants. No addressing the fact that they will be merely ratifying past executive negotiations rather than guiding future ones. No curtailment of excessive designation of negotiating text as “classified” at the whim of the USTR, without a solid national security rationale.
Instead - export opportunity/trade distortion/regulatory harmonization happy talk.
✚✚✚
New TPA Bill Nearly Identical to Last Year’s Failed Effort
Side-by-Side Comparison Shows Very Little Changed from Baucus-Hatch-Camp TPA
The TPA bill introduced yesterday is almost identical to the bill introduced in January 2014 by Sens. Baucus and Hatch and Rep. Camp.
See for yourself. This side-by-side comparison of the two bills shows that the legislation essentially changed in only two areas: it includes a negotiating objective on human rights, and it includes what authors describe as a third process to turn off fast track, but only after the agreement is finalized, and even though Congress already holds the authority to change its own rules.
Here’s the bill s side by side, 2014 (Voted Down) vs 2015:
http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/Side-by-side%20TPA%20Comparison.pdf
Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Sander Levin yesterday also released a detailed document laying out how the new TPA bill falls short – just as last year’s version did as well.
Michael Stumo, CEO
Coalition for a Prosperous America
main: 202.688.5145
direct: 413.717.0184
cpa@prosperousamerica.org
www.prosperousamerica.org
RSS Feed
