TPP is a fast track to lower standards

As Congress considers granting Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also known as “fast track,” we all need to understand what is at stake. 

Congress is being asked to take a huge leap of faith — to grant the administration fast-track authority to speed consideration of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — and potentially any other trade agreements concluded through 2021.

While TPP alone would cover 40 percent of the global economy, it could be expanded indefinitely, as additional countries could join after the deal is finalized. And the fast-track bill introduced in Congress could give this same authority, not just to President Barack Obama, but to two future presidents for any deals they negotiate.

While I support fair trade and a vibrant global economy, this legislation would put us on a fast track to lower wages, outsourced jobs and degraded environmental and labor standards — as too many past trade deals have done. There were high hopes for the TPP to address the problems from past trade agreements, but unfortunately, this deal simply doesn’t merit our confidence.

When people hear trade, what comes to mind is giving opportunity to businesses to export or to expand their enterprise into other markets. In Hawaii, where some of our important trade partners are involved in the TPP, it’s easy to understand why this is appealing. I argue that we can and should expand trade, but it has to be fair trade, not just free.

Trade agreements are supposed to open foreign markets for more U.S. exports, a laudable goal. But trade deals must be judged on the big picture — not just their impact on exports, but how they affect good jobs at home, as well as food safety, the environment, public health, workers’ rights, access to medicines and Internet freedom.

TPP proponents argue that the agreement includes enforceable labor and environmental standards that will force our trading partners to raise their standards. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that these provisions will be adequately enforced in a timely way. And the proposed TPP includes several countries with problematic labor and human rights records — Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico and Brunei. The administration has yet to reveal its plan to bring these countries into compliance prior to TPP implementation. This is worrisome to say the least.

As to the overall likely impact of TPP on U.S. jobs and competitiveness, many economists have identified currency manipulation as a key factor. That involves another country intervening in currency markets to alter exchange rates, thereby putting American producers and workers at a competitive disadvantage. Bipartisan majorities of both the House and the Senate have asked the administration to include enforceable provisions on currency manipulation in the TPP, but none have been proposed.

I am concerned, as are many prominent legal scholars, that the proposed investment provisions of TPP give too much power to foreign corporations to challenge legitimate government regulations to protect public health and the environment. We should not put democratic decision-making on the defensive by allowing corporations to sue governments in supra-national tribunals.

Finally, TPA proponents claim that Congress gets the final say in ultimately approving TPP. While it may be true that Congress will eventually have the opportunity to vote up or down on a final deal, this assumes that a Republican-controlled Congress will really scrutinize this deal to ensure that it gives all Americans a fair shot. So far in this Congress, this has been a very low priority for the Republican Party.

The broad-based coalition that opposes fast track includes many thoughtful organizations, including all of organized labor, environmental groups, faith and international development groups, immigrant rights groups, agriculture and safe-food groups, leading consumer groups, Asian-American and Pacific Islander groups, and Internet rights groups. 

These groups agree that our future is too important to fast track.