the NSA snooping in on us, "If you have nothing to hide, don't worry about it."

Well, we're telling Obama, "If you have nothing to hide, show us the TTP draft."

to see it.

Why would the Democrats be involved?

draft. He wants his staff to be able to see the draft. Why would the Democrats be involved in his request? They no longer control the Senate.

Bernie isn't just asking for his staff to see the draft. He wants it available to the public.

1) have no problem servicing their constituents by personally reading the draft, and 2) aren't interested in presenting an agreement while it's still be negotiated?

Can you name a modern bilat, treaty, or accord that was presented in draft form, while it was still being negotiated, to the public? No....you can't, because that's not how things work.

Think about the last union election you were part of....did all the members sit at the table during all of the negotiations, or did the representatives chosen by the union members negotiate and bring proposals back?

... but us common proles cannot.

Can you name a modern bilat, treaty, or accord that was presented in draft form that was presented to corporate CEO's?


Your defense of this secrecy and corporate give-away is expected.

have been given to some industry experts/CEOs because it makes no sense to draft agreements without technical input and support from the very people who will implementing those agreements.

Yeah--it's pretty common to circulate pieces of legislation or agreements to select parties before completing a draft. I've worked on legislation where specific sections were sent to people with expertise, but not the whole thing.

Senator Sanders has access to the draft. Why should his campaign manager have access.

"Tradition" sure ain't gonna cover it.

The foreign policy implications alone justify the secrecy. Don't forget....we are working with many other nations on this. If we could not provide security, we would open them up to espionage.

Russia and China are furious about this agreement, because the specific intent of it is to isolate them from it. Think about that for a moment---given the attempts of the Russians and the Chinese to destabilize the dollar, you bet we being secret.

matter, I must be wrong, I generally politely suggest that they get themselves a tad bit more educated about what they are writing about.


I'm going to recommend that you educate yourself on the partner countries and their interests---I think expanding your knowledge on what is being done, who is involved, and taking a look at what China and Russia are saying about this deal might give you a more rounded look.

Krugman's written two articles on TPP....they are worth looking at.

you do any googling to see what I was talking about, or did you stick to your one source---the leaked papers?

rather than Russia since it's been under negotiation since long before there was much concern about Russia.

Here's the China People's Daily (the official CPC newspaper) take on why the TPP is bad for China:

...the negotiation is subject to the U.S. domestic politics. At the very beginning of the negotiation, the United States reminded other members that the U.S. Congress would not accept a TPP without strong labor and environmental measures. Obviously, the United States aims to lower the comparative advantages of developing countries so as to create more job opportunities for itself.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8113289.html

I can tell you i talked to my members constantly about what was on the table and what wasn't. Our contract negotiations were open and transparent. As they should be.

was always shared with our members as the negations were going on. Not only were our officers at the table, but 3 at-large members who would answer other members questions with no restrictions.

I understand that it remain secret until it's signed...

But once it's agreed to... and signed... shouldn't we the people...

Get to take a look... and see if we approve ???

This is our country, I think, not just the bankers and energy billionaires' private plantation.

besides, 'member how great NAFTA was. jobs galore!

Last edited Thu Jan 8, 2015, 09:20 AM - Edit history (1)

Unfortunately (I wish all negotiations were public as Woodrow Wilson famously proposed) that is not how international discussions usually operate. AFAIK, past negotiations on limiting nuclear weapons, their testing and their proliferation were private until they were concluded, debated and voted on. In many instances the US signed those treaties but never ratified them. Concluding negotiations with other countries does not automatically lead to ratification.

You don't get much more important an issue than limiting the danger of blowing up the entire globe up many times over.

Bernie didn't ask for TPP to be made public.

How the fuck is congress supposed to debate an agreement they are not able to read?

The whole purpose of "fast track" it to prevent any debate and put an agreement to and up/down vote by people who have no idea what the agreement contains.

The same way it has or will debate the agreements with China, Cuba and Iran - once they are or were completed and submitted to congress for ratification.

or filibustered. So waiting for the bill to be finished and fast tracked means that any "debate" will be useless. Not to mention the "debate" will consist of members of Congress getting just over one minute to state their case.

This is bullshit of the highest order. Spin it any way you want.

Congress does not usually get to pick apart treaties that have been negotiated with other countries. Congress has rejected many treaties that it had to approve or reject but could not modify including the FTAA in 2005.

Where did you get the "the "debate" will consist of members of Congress getting just over one minute to state their case." I had not seen that before. What happens for the rest of the 90 days?

that there is an 88-second limit on debate in the House when each 'fast track' bill is different and this one has not been introduced yet.

If he knows the content of the current 'fast track' bill and it contains that kind of severe limit on debate, I would think there would be enough support from both parties for increasing the amount of time each member can speak about it. Limiting each member to 88 seconds when a vote is not due for 90 days does not make any sense.

than Grayson does.

Have a nice day.

I like to think I understand the basics about how congress operates, but I'm equally sure that most congress types and many here at DU know it better than I do.

I simply have not seen the 88-second per representative reference anywhere else. I often like to know where people get their information rather than just accepting it. Perhaps he has seen a draft of a 'fast track' bill to be introduced in this congress or maybe he using the last 'fast track' bill in 2002 as the source of his information. I don't think it is unreasonable to wonder which (or something else) is the source of the 88-second information.

Fast track would allow the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership to leapfrog customary legislative protocol and be put to a rapid "up or down" vote without a public hearing or amendments, and with limited floor debate.
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/congress-dont-renew-fast

Wallach describes fast track as, "a procedure that basically gives Congress's authority over trade to the president. Congress ends up handcuffed, and an agreement gets negotiated, signed before the Congress ever approves it, and then the president gets to write legislation. It's not subject to committee amendment, and it gets a guaranteed 90-day vote with no amendments."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-devaney/conservatives-liberals-ag_b_6181938.html

Fast Track handed the executive branch five key congressional powers - steamrolling key checks and balances in the Constitution by seizing authority vested in our congressional representatives:
•Power to select trade partners,
•Power to set terms and sign sweeping "trade" agreements before Congress votes on them,
•Power to write legislation to change all U.S. laws needed to conform with the agreements, skirt congressional review and amendments and directly submit this legislation for a vote,
•Power to force votes within 60-90 days of submitting the implementing legislation to Congress,
•Power to override normal voting rules. All amendments on Fast-Tracked FTAs are banned and debate is limited, including in the Senate.
http://www.exposethetpp.org/Fast-Track.html

It creates special rules that empower the White House to negotiate and sign trade agreements without Congressional oversight. Lawmakers won’t be able to analyze and change their provisions, and have only 90 days for an up or down, Yes or No vote to ratify the entire treaty.
https://act.eff.org/action/don-t-let-congress-fast-track-tpp

Congress used to do all the trade legislation until that changed under FDR and the RTAA which gave him the authority to pick countries to negotiate trade deals with and then submit them for up-or-down votes in Congress. (Republicans complained that FDR "secretly has made tariff agreements with our foreign competitors, flooding our markets with foreign commodities."

Does anyone here think that, without 'fast track', a congress controlled completely by republicans is going to go through the TPP and take out the provisions that are anti-labor, anti-environment, etc.? Or leave in provisions that are pro-labor, pro-environment, etc.?

It is no wonder that Democrats support 'fast track' for Obama and the republican base opposes it.

We are stuck with whatever the corporations that are involved in negotiating decide for us.

And from what wiki has leaked, it is a horrible deal for everybody involved. Except the global conglomerates.

Most international treaties and agreements are negotiated by the executive branch and approved or rejected by the legislative branch.

From the old Strategic Arms Limitation treaties to the more recent Cuba, China and Iran negotiations, the executive branch does the negotiating and the legislature can reject the resulting agreement like the FTAA in 2005 and the UN Arms Trade Treaty which the Senate rejected last year, but the legislature does not get to renegotiate the treaty that the executive branch negotiated.

Really, the idea of Congress amending a treaty is kind of silly. They should all just get voted on as negotiated.

This isn't just any "agreement" and certainly not a "trade agreement". This agreement has been carefully crafted, not by our representative government but by major corporations. Why do international corporations get to see the agreement but not our representatives? Pres Obama thinks we are too ignorant to understand. OK, we have elected representative to understand for us and make sure we aren't being screwed.

environmental agreements with China or many other international negotiations. They almost always occur in private by administration representatives.

I'm sure that what it is. Every other country wanted to negotiate this openly and Obama said that is impossible because the American people are too ignorant.

negotiated between international corporations. Fast Track is to limit chance for debate. There is a huge difference between nuclear desarmament treaties and this agreement that will give Big Pharma the f'n farm.

so dishonesty is afoot, somewhere.

eventual agreement with Iran. They are all "international agreements" whether they concern diplomatic recognition, environmental protection, nuclear power/weapons or trade.

I'll put my trust in Bernie and the other progressives opposing this.corporate "treaty".

I trust Bernie Sanders. He is one of the few in DC who has our backs.

a position. GD would become "Here's what Bernie had to say on the topic. Now post your agreement or reveal yourself as a corporate tool."

Bernie is my #2 choice for the Democratic nomination (assuming he runs as a Democrat) behind Warren but I don't now and probably never will agree with a politician 100% of the time (though both Bernie and Elizabeth are in the 99% range) - unless 'pampango' becomes a Democratic presidential candidate one day.

I've been focusing on the TPP for a year now, and I agree with him and the others opposing it.

That is the problem

Obama's used it three times already for treaties that were grandfathered in when it expired.

The opposition to fast track has always been Republicans.

that they have to be ratified or rejected as written but cannot be amended.

He wants his staff to have access, even if they don't have security clearance, and he wants to be able to copy and distribute it.

Prior thread on thishttp://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6048131 details it....

More patriotic than loyalty to America.
I must have missed the pill cart that week.

Yes, must have missed mine too.

they'll let see it. He'll actually tell us what's in there.

measures, which has caused some controversy.

Obama promised it. Why is there not transparency with TPP? What are they hiding?

I'm putting them on Facebook.

congress has time to figure out what is in it and what the implications of those rules are.

would have screwed us big time. When we saw what was in the contract, we overwhelmingly voted it down. There were only a few good things in the contract but that was far outweighed by the terrible.

I guess what I am saying is contracts negotiated in secret tend to screw workers. The same can be said for treaties such as the TPP.

http://labornotes.org/2014/09/rail-workers-vote-down-single-person-crews

That POS agreement had me quite concerned. I know it's just a matter of time before we see something similar again, though.

As the saying goes, the camel's nose is under the tent.......

The only thing that would have helped me was 100% pay instead of the 85% I'm at now but that was offset by the job cuts. There was no way I was going to vote for job cuts. We have to be our brother's keeper.......

I'm just a lowly switchman/conductor who doesn't want to sit in the right seat.

Right in the shadow of the NOC...

Where are you switching?

Vancouver, Washington

The true Obama believers tend to be blinded to any of this but the rest of us with our eyes wide open need to fight this as hard as we can. Thanks to great Americans like Bernie - who sadly never had a chance to be president because of the "S" word - for fighting this with all they have.

I'm just not getting the argument this must be kept in secret. It is not a nuclear treaty, it's a trade agreement.

Isn't every Senator and Representative reliant on feedback from their constituents to help inform their decision making process? Isn't it incumbent on the government to provide that information in a forthright way and freely disseminate that information except in rare cases of national security?

Here information has been disseminated to corporations who will tend to benefit fiscally via the agreement, and senators/representatives are to rubber stamp an agreement in which sufficient time to gather feedback and responses is being rushed or nonexistent.

No sunshine on this one, and no filibuster. Just sign. Feels like an insurance policy with a lot of fine print.

No thanks.

...at about 9:53.

- That way you won't have to wade through the other things he was for, before.....

http://vimeo.com/20355767

Daylight is the only remedy for this.