May, 02 2016, 02:30pm EDT
Leaked TTIP Documents: Threats to Regulatory Protections
Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen
WASHINGTON
Today, Greenpeace Netherlands leaked negotiating texts of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement, the proposed trade deal between the United States and Europe. The leaks include 13 of 17 consolidated texts, as well as a European Union memorandum on the negotiating state of play. This statement provides a preliminary analysis of one of the leaked chapters, Regulatory Cooperation.
Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen
Europe, beware. The leaked TTIP text confirms that the United States is trying to export its failed regulatory model. If the United States succeeds in its project, Big Business will gain enormous power to block, slow, undermine and repeal European regulations.
The leaked text makes clear that there are serious issues requiring analysis in particular sectors, but also that the Regulatory Cooperation chapter poses a major threat to health, safety, environmental, labor, consumer, civil and political rights, and other regulatory protections. The U.S. proposals in the Regulatory Cooperation chapter seek to export many of the worst features of U.S. rulemaking.
There is a lot to recommend about the U.S. regulatory process in theory, but in practice, the U.S. rulemaking process now evidences a massive tilt to favor the interests of regulated industries. It is far too slow; regulators are bogged down in seemingly endless analytic requirements that are themselves biased to favor the interests of regulated parties. Its veneration of "cost-benefit analysis" provides a pseudo-scientific cloak to industry's apocalyptic claims about the costs of the next regulation and operates at loggerheads with application of the precautionary principle.
In the days ahead, Public Citizen will issue a more detailed analysis of the draft Regulatory Cooperation chapter. These are among our top line concerns from the U.S. proposals in that chapter:
- Regulatory Delay - Paralysis by Analysis: Article X.13 would require parties to provide detailed and expansive justifications for their decision to issue a regulation, including consideration of regulatory alternatives. This is an inherently unequal obligation, because there is no burden to provide justification for doing nothing. In practice, the need to provide detailed justification for issuing a rule dramatically slows U.S. rulemaking.
- Corporate-Biased Cost Benefit Analysis: Article X.13.1.c would require parties to conduct detailed cost-benefit studies of regulations and regulatory alternatives. It is important to understand that the U.S. understanding of the phrase "anticipated costs and benefits" is fundamentally different than the European conception of regulatory impact assessment. In the United States, cost-benefit analysis is an extremely technical concept involving extensive data collection and elaborate modeling, and it is generally understood to be a near-absolute decision-making criterion. Its highly technical nature obscures the fact that cost estimates frequently rely on regulated industry-provided data and are excessive, and that non-quantifiable or indirect benefits are frequently not captured.
- One-Sided Analytic Requirements: Article X.13.2 would require parties to assess the impact of regulations on small businesses, a formal assessment under U.S. in certain circumstances that imposes extensive delay. It is also a one-sided required analysis, both under U.S. law and the U.S. TTIP proposal, because the specially required analysis looks to burdens ("adverse economic impacts" in the TTIP proposal) but not pro-competitive or other benefits to small business.
- Look Back, Not Forward: Article X.16 would require parties to undertake retrospective reviews of regulations. This is, again, an inherently uneven process, because the instruction is to search for rules to revise or repeal, not for regulatory shortcomings or gaps requiring new initiatives. In practice in the United States, the obligation to undertake regulatory reviews demands valuable time and resources from agencies, and interferes with their ability to conduct forward-looking activity.
- Trade Over the Public Interest: Article X.9 would impose a requirement for parties to consider trade effects of proposed regulations, and implicitly to justify any detrimental effects on trade. This is admittedly a soft requirement, but is notable inserting purely commercial considerations into regulatory decision-making and should be viewed as precursor to more robust demands in this area to follow.
Taken in their entirety, the U.S. Regulatory Cooperation proposals are affirmatively hostile to the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle counsels taking protective action in the face of uncertainty. The U.S. cost-benefit standards, demands for consideration of alternative regulatory approaches, and expansive analytic requirements also counsel for inaction in the face of uncertainty. Moreover, U.S.-style cost-benefit analysis places a premium on industry-provided cost estimates while effectively discounting benefits from action to prevent possible harm.
There is no need to overstate this tension; it is in fact possible to take precautionary action in a cost-benefit framework, as the United States sometimes does - but it is also the case that U.S.-style cost benefit is generally discordant with precautionary approaches.
The U.S. proposal notably does not include a requirement for judicial review of regulatory impact analytic requirements. This feature is central to the U.S. rulemaking process, but U.S. negotiators have recognized its incompatibility with European institutional arrangements.
It remains to be seen how a regulatory cooperation chapter will intersect with the investment chapter. But irrespective of the intersection with the investment chapter, Europeans should be aware that, if the U.S. Regulatory Cooperation proposals are accepted and TTIP is approved, it is only a matter of time before the United States and U.S. corporations begin advocating judicial review of European compliance with the provisions of the Regulatory Cooperation chapter.
Judicial review is an inherent part of the logic of the U.S. system, and there is no doubt that U.S. corporate interests will insist that judicial review is required to enforce the terms of the Regulatory Cooperation chapter.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Open Convention or Harris 'Coronation'? Democrats Weigh Options After Biden Exit
"If Kamala Harris wants the nomination, and wants it to be worth anything, she has to at least show that she fought for it and won it cleanly," argued one commentator.
Jul 22, 2024
Vice President Kamala Harris quickly racked up endorsements from major Democratic figures—including President Joe Biden—and received the backing of deep-pocketed party donors on Sunday after the incumbent exited the 2024 contest in the face of insurmountable pressure.
But while much of the party coalesced around the vice president and argued she's the obvious choice to take on Republican nominee Donald Trump in November, some Democrats and commentators made the case for a competitive nominating process, contending that it would strengthen the eventual candidate and avoid the appearance of an undemocratic "coronation."
Former President Barack Obama was the most prominent Democrat to hint at support for something resembling an open convention, saying in a statement that he has "extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges."
Prior to Biden's exit, dozens of former Democratic lawmakers endorsed an open convention, writing in an open letter that the process would "energize the party and capture the imagination and interest of voters—especially younger and marginalized voters—who have been uninspired by the choices so far."
"I am for an open convention—huge media coverage leading up and during—knock the Trump campaign off kilter and off the air!" former Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), one of the letter's signatories, wrote in a social media post on Sunday.
Opponents of an open convention, meanwhile, argued such a process would be chaotic, divisive, and inherently damaging to the party's prospects.
"Democrats have a choice to make: unite and win, or fight each other and lose," said Birmingham, Alabama Mayor Randall Woodfin.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and other progressives in Congress also made the case for rallying behind Harris rather than leaving the door open to potential Democratic challengers and requiring Harris to win the nomination at the party's convention in Chicago next month.
"Kamala Harris will be the next president of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on social media. "Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let's get to work."
It's unclear whether any viable challenger would emerge should Democrats opt for an open convention, but Harris herself said after Biden dropped his reelection bid that her "intention is to earn and win this nomination."
Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia is reportedly considering re-registering as a Democrat to compete for the nomination—a bid that would be doomed to fail given that he's reviled by the Democratic Party's progressive wing and much of the establishment for obstructing significant elements of Biden's legislative agenda.
(Update: Manchin toldCBS News Monday morning that he is "not going to be a candidate for president.")
NOTUSreported Sunday that "a small group of Democratic leaders are seen as having the credibility and resources to challenge for the nomination," including Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Shapiro and Newsom both endorsed Harris on Sunday.
According toThe New York Times, some Democrats privately "argued that a more competitive process would benefit Ms. Harris because it could dispel doubts about her political skills." Notably, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) were not among the Democratic lawmakers who endorsed Harris on Sunday.
Drop Site's Ryan Grim observed Sunday that "the conventional wisdom is that an open convention is simply never going to happen, and if it does it will be a disaster for Democrats—weeks of infighting and chaos that'll drag the party down."
"But that argument is merely a mix of assumption and assertion," Grim wrote. "With a little imagination, that chaos could be turned toward the party's advantage at a time when it's desperately needed. The argument for coronating Kamala Harris doesn't consider how it would look for a party that is in the grip of a legitimacy crisis—Democratic elites were the last in the country to acknowledge Biden's frailty—to foist a new nominee on the public."
"If Kamala Harris wants the nomination, and wants it to be worth anything, she has to at least show that she fought for it and won it cleanly," he added. "And the only way to do that is at an open convention."
The Democratic National Committee's (DNC) rules panel is set to meet this week to "implement a framework to select a new nominee," as The Wall Street Journalreported. The panel's co-chairs, according to the Journal, vowed the process would be "comprehensive, fair, and expeditious."
Before Biden's exit, the DNC was planning to hold a virtual roll call vote early next month to cement the incumbent president as the Democratic nominee weeks before the party's convention in Chicago.
It's unclear whether the DNC plans to move ahead with a virtual vote.
"While an open convention would undoubtedly be entertaining to watch, I doubt we'll see that," said Dan Tokaji, an election law expert at the University of Wisconsin Law School. "It's possible that delegates will vote to nominate Harris before the convention even begins."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden to 'Stand Down'; Endorses Kamala Harris
' I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year'
Jul 21, 2024
Breaking News...more to come
UPDATE : In response to President Biden’s announcement that he is no longer seeking reelection, MoveOn Political Action Executive Director Rahna Epting released the following statement:
“President Joe Biden‘s legacy is defined by defeating Donald Trump, restoring our nation’s commitment to our democracy, and delivering one of the most impressive domestic policy agendas in modern history. Just like he did in 2020, President Biden is making a tremendous personal sacrifice to preserve our democracy, putting the interest of the American people first, and he has the gratitude of our nation and our millions of members.
“Vice President Harris is tested and respected, and her voice is critically important at this moment. MoveOn and our members have her back and believe that those who share our commitment to winning this election and protecting our futures will do everything in their power to lift her up and stop Trump in his tracks.
MoveOn is more driven than ever to unifying the anti-Trump coalition and defeating Donald Trump and extremist MAGA Republicans once again in 2024. We are all in on electing Kamala Harris and Democrats to the U.S. House and Senate and we look forward to engaging our members and surge voters across the country to rise up and make their voices heard this fall.”
President Joe Biden has made the decision to not run for president. Read his just released statement below.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israeli Military Strikes Claim Lives of 64 Individuals in a Single Day
'When is enough? When will the war ever end?'
Jul 21, 2024
The local Health Ministry says at least 64 people were killed and 105 injured in Israeli attacks across Gaza in the past 24 hours. Many victims are still under the rubble and on roads, with civil defense crews not able to reach them, it adds.
The Israeli military has launched numerous deadly strikes focused on the Al-Nuseirat refugee camp, including the targeting of multiple UN-run schools housing displaced people.
Nuseirat residents described living in constant fear of being bombed and a deteriorating humanitarian situation.
“The situation is scary,” said Rahma Abu Hajjaj, a 39-year-old mother of five from Nuserirat. “There are no warnings, there are no alarms when homes are bombed, we are hiding all the time and we do not know why they are targeting these homes.”
"We hear the sounds of explosions in Nuseirat and we see the smoke rising from here in Deir Al-Balah, the last refuge you can say and we are being terrorized by the feeling tanks may roll here," Tamer Aburakan, a resident of Gaza City, told
Reuters.
"Where should we go next? The entire Gaza Strip is under fire, and we are being hunted like deer in a forest. When is enough? When will the war ever end?" he said via a chat app.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to travel to the US on Monday. Netanyahu is expected to meet with US President Joe Biden on Tuesday afternoon. The next day, he is due to address a joint session of US Congress.
Thousands of people are expected to protest against the visit of Netanyahu for whom the top prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is seeking an arrest warrant for war crimes.
At least 38,983 Palestinians have been killed and 89,727 others injured in Israel's military offensive on Gaza since Oct. 7, Gaza's health ministry said on Sunday, including the 64 people killed in the last 24 hours.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular