I have been asked to clarify my position on TPP, the Trans Pacific Partnership. I know that there are others who have the same question. Since I have previously written about this on Colorado Pols, this seems like a good forum for that response.
The short answer is that after much research and thought, I have realized that I cannot support the TPP as it is currently written. In many ways, I find myself in the same position as Hillary Clinton: I was optimistic about this highly anticipated trade agreement, but was disappointed and cannot support the final result.
Here’s the long answer:
Our farmers and ranchers need international markets. I was hopeful that TPP would help meet that need. That hope was squelched when, as the result of another trade agreement, the House voted against Country of Origin Labels (COOL) for Colorado beef. This same restriction against COOL is also found in the TPP. Under the TPP, beef and other agricultural products would not be allowed to display an identifying COOL label. Consumers would be unable to tell whether a steak came from the USA, where standards for food safety and quality are high, or from some other country with lower standards.
The fact is that the world prefers American beef, and Colorado ranchers are a big part of why they do. Around the world, consumers look for beef that says “Product of the USA”. That advantage is lost when those products are not allowed to display the “Product of USA” or “Product of Colorado” label. Other countries know they cannot compete with the quality or reputation of American beef, thus the ban on COOL. That is not fair to Colorado ranchers.
Consequently, the only reason for someone from CD-04 to support the TPP was no longer valid. I cannot support a treaty that erases over a century of hard work to develop a reputation and puts Colorado ranchers at such a strategic disadvantage.
Once I realized that ranchers and farmers in CD-04 would not benefit from TPP, the other parts of the treaty were no longer acceptable. To be clear, I am willing to accept some trade-offs if they provide an advantage. In any negotiation, one must weigh the costs against the benefits and then make an informed decision. I am not willing, however, to accept things like unfair labor practices, risk to the environment, and the loss of intellectual property rights, especially when there is no corresponding benefit to be gained for Coloradans.
I hope this helps to explain my position. I cannot support the TPP as it currently is written.
Bob Seay (pronounced “See”) is a Democrat who is running against Ken Buck in CD-04. See BobForColorado.org for more information.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: JeffcoBlue
IN: Even More Felony Charges For Colorado Coup Plotters Jenna Ellis, John Eastman
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Who Wins What in June? (Vote #1)
BY: NOV GOP meltdown
IN: Even More Felony Charges For Colorado Coup Plotters Jenna Ellis, John Eastman
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: joe_burly
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
I agree your piece is thoughtful, bob, but it's also wrong. I agree with you on COOL but as a wheat farmer, I'm more interested in my ability to export grain to Asia. TPP helps that. It also provides more protection to intellectual property than the current anarchic situation where U.S. software is routinely pirated. On balance, TPP helps agriculture in general and the U.S. as a whole.
So does this mean you can't vote for HRC?