Pascrell, Ways and Means Democrats Urge President Obama to Exclude Investor State Dispute Settlement Provisions from Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ-09), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, announced that he wrote to President Obama urging him to exclude investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions from the proposed Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement. Reps. Lloyd Doggett, Linda Sanchez, John Lewis and Jim McDermott, also Ways and Means Committee members, joined in sending the letter to the President.
“We share your goals of ensuring that U.S. interests that invest abroad are not treated in a discriminatory fashion or denied fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances and believe they can be attained in TTIP without the inclusion of ISDS provisions,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to President Obama. “Should investor-to-state provisions be included in the TTIP, we believe that reforms to the current model are critical to avoiding the problems that have arisen under the provisions in existing FTAs and BITs.”
“I applaud Representatives Pascrell, Doggett and the other Ways and Means Democrats for standing up for working families in both the US and EU in the TTIP by taking action to exclude investor-to-state dispute settlement ISDS,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. “The TTIP can help our economy grow, but only if it excludes the ISDS. ISDS gives foreign investors extraordinary legal rights to challenge generally applicable public policies--including decisions about where to place toxic waste dumps, whether to increase minimum wages, and how to protect children from smoking and water pollution--in privatized ‘corporate courts’. Giving foreign investors more rights than domestic businesses is no way to build shared prosperity.”
The full text of the letter is as follows:
December 17, 2014
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We thank you for your efforts to grow the economy, provide greater opportunities for working people and promote more sustainable energy and environmental policies. As you begin negotiations on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), we urge you to seek investment rules that further these goals by ensuring an appropriate balance between investor protections and the public interest.
Congress has repeatedly expressed concerns about the investment provisions of U.S. trade agreements. The inclusion of investor-to-state dispute settlement process (ISDS) in previous trade agreements advantages foreign investors over domestic ones and threatens US laws, regulations, and judicial decisions protecting health and public safety. These provisions provide foreign investors the right to either bypass our own courts entirely or to undermine them by challenging their results before panels of private arbitrators who are not required to protect the public interest or to utilize American legal principles and precedent.
We share your goals of ensuring that U.S. interests that invest abroad are not treated in a discriminatory fashion or denied fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances and believe they can be attained in TTIP without the inclusion of ISDS provisions. Quite simply, there is no need for ISDS in a free trade agreement between developed countries with well-established court systems, like the United States and the countries of the European Union. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, are but a few of European Union countries party to TTIP in which the rule of law is not in doubt. According to the Chamber of Commerce, U.S. firms already have $2.3 trillion directly invested in EU countries, suggesting that U.S. businesses already believe investments in EU countries are safe. Additionally, the absence of such mechanisms in the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the earlier U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, and the U.S.- Israel Free Trade Agreement provide relevant precedent that counsels against including investor-state dispute settlement provisions in the TTIP.
Excluding ISDS provisions from the TTIP is more likely to generate broad public support in both the United States and Europe. Should investor-to-state provisions be included in the TTIP, we believe that reforms to the current model are critical to avoiding the problems that have arisen under the provisions in existing FTAs and BITs. We would be pleased to work with you and your staff to investigate foreign investor rights reform ideas further. As always, we thank you for considering our views on this important issue.
Bill Pascrell, Jr. Lloyd Doggett
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Linda T. Sanchez John Lewis
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Member of Congress
Cc: The Honorable John Kerry, Secretary of State
Ambassador Michael B. Froman, United States Trade Representative