Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown Call For Immediate Public Disclosure Of Obama Trade Deal

[Playinghardball]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, have urged President Barack Obama to “promptly declassify” the draft details of a proposed international trade agreement in a letter sent Saturday. The senators point out that the Obama administration has pushed for “fast-track” approval status to help the deal through Congress, before fully disclosing the details of the agreement to the public.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership could become the largest international free-trade treaty, governing trade between a dozen Pacific nations, including the United States. World leaders and advisors are currently negotiating its terms, and have been since 2005. Earlier this month, Senate Finance Committee Chair Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, co-sponsored legislation that would only allow members of Congress to vote “yes” or “no” on the final deal’s approval to prevent legislators from tinkering with the terms set by leaders and advisors.

Members of Congress may read the draft text of the deal as it stands today but are prohibited from publicly discussing the full details, which have yet to be made available to the public or the press.

In the letter sent to Obama, Warren and Brown point out that industry groups have had plenty of chance to review the document and provide input, since the deal is shaped by the members of 28 advisory committees and 85 percent of those members are corporate executives or industry lobbyists, but everyday Americans have not.

“Before Congress votes to facilitate the adoption of the TPP, the American people should be allowed to see for themselves whether it’s a good deal for them,” the senators write.

More here: http://www.ibtimes.com/tpp-divide-sens-elizabeth-warren-sherrod-brown-call-immediate-public-disclosure-obama-1897090?utm_content=buffer0c08e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[MaggieD]

1. They seriously said this?

“Before Congress votes to facilitate the adoption of the TPP, the American people should be allowed to see for themselves whether it’s a good deal for them,” the senators write."

They know full well there will be a public comment period prior to any adoption. I'm against the TPP (because plenty is known about it and it's not good). But I am also against the hyperbolic political gamesmanship.

[diabeticman]

2. What's wrong?

“Before Congress votes to facilitate the adoption of the TPP, the American people should be allowed to see for themselves whether it’s a good deal for them,”

[aspirant]

3. Let the people

see it before ANY votes are taken

[Cleita]

6. Give it up. The way this deal is being executed stinks to high heaven and all your

claims that everything is above board, up front and fair and square just isn't true. Too many public persons whom I trust to be truthful have had some real concerns like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, etc. and journalist Amy Goodman, who is the only newsperson I trust completely. The rest is just putting lipstick on an ugly pig.

[MaggieD]

43. So you know it's BS EVEN though it's secret, right?

Yeah, so do I. So let's drop the BS about it being secret.

[Cleita]

55. Anything that has to be done in secret isn't kosher.

Why do we need trade deals anyway? We used to just slap tariffs on many imports and delivered goods to ports that wanted our goods. That was sixty years ago and I know because my family traveled on freighters a lot. There were trade agreements for raw goods like copper, oil and coal. Most stuff was made in America so we didn't need to import cheap crap for Wal-Mart. Mostly luxury goods like French wine were imported and no trade agreement was needed for that either.

[MaggieD]

61. Newsflash - it's not bad because it's a secret

Because it's not a secret. It's bad because the framework is bad.

[Cleita]

63. Historical fact.

Governments that conduct business in secret lean towards totalitarianism and fascism. If we let our pols get away with conducting business this way, then we are heading for that rocky road.

[MaggieD]

67. Historical fact

Trade pacts and treaties are not negotiated in public. Ever. The framework is more than enough to be against it. Seems people are not willing to discuss actual issues.

What's your argument to your reps going to be when the full text is released for public comment? What public comments have you made this far on what has been released?

Are you just going to say you're against it because you haven't read it? That's not very persuasive to most elected officials.

[Cleita]

71. A revolution was fought over this. It was the American Revolution.

[MaggieD]

72. You're big on hyperbole, I see

Whatever.

[Cleita]

73. No hyperbole. I find facts and figures a waste on those who aren't interested in them.

However, you can't seem to prove anything you say.

[MaggieD]

74. Oh I'm interested...

Tell me all kinds of facts about how Obama is a fascist and totalitarian. Can't wait.

[Cleita]

75. Straw man. No one is calling Obama a fascist and a totalitarian.

No one is calling our government that. We are pointing out that historically secrecy in legislation can lead to this. Do you know the difference.?

[MaggieD]

76. You did in a previous post

Are you disavowing that post now?

Here's your quote: "Governments that conduct business in secret lean towards totalitarianism and fascism. If we let our pols get away with conducting business this way, then we are heading for that rocky road."

[Cleita]

77. You are misreading things. I never mention Obama in my posts unless I am directly

referring to him. I do talk about the TPP, directly, as you know. I never equated President Obama with the governments I spoke of.

Why are you?

[MaggieD]

78. Well who are you referring to then?

Who are the fascists and totalitarians you're concerned about? IMO it's ridiculous to suggest any democrat shares anything in common with a fascist. That's the kind of shit I see republicans post normally.

[Cleita]

79. Good night. eom

[MaggieD]

80. Yeah, that's what I thought

[Logical]

7. So you are in favor of senators seeing it but not the public? nt

[MaggieD]

10. There is a mandatory public comment period of 60 days

... once the deal is finalized. It is untrue that a) the public won't see it, and b) that there is nothing public about it now.

Someone else here just posted a giant list of why it is bad. It's not a secret. And there is no reason to pretend the framework is secret except as an excuse to be ignorant about it.

Why don't Brown, Warren, and Sanders quit with this BS and just tell us why it's bad (for those too lazy to read for themselves)?

I know enough about it to be against it. So surely they do as well. They should stop playing politics AND treating us as if we are stupid and discuss the reasons it is bad.

[Logical]

14. Why can they see it now and we cannot? What is the benefit of that to anyone? nt

[zipplewrath]

19. Because they can't

Why don't Brown, Warren, and Sanders quit with this BS and just tell us why it's bad (for those too lazy to read for themselves)?

Because they can't. They are prohibited from discussing the details with anyone including their own staffs, much less the voters.

[MaggieD]

20. Baloney

They can discuss the problems with the framework 24/7 and that is all they need to do. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

[zipplewrath]

25. From the OP

Members of Congress may read the draft text of the deal as it stands today but are prohibited from publicly discussing the full details, which have yet to be made available to the public or the press.

........

“Before Congress votes to facilitate the adoption of the TPP, the American people should be allowed to see for themselves whether it’s a good deal for them,” the senators write.

There's no baloney here.

[MaggieD]

26. Again, not true

I guess it is easier to claim that then to actually make a cogent argument. But there is no need to discuss the draft text. No politician gets into that level of detail on ANY issue.

The frame work is publically available and there are no restrictions on discussing it. It is published by the US Trade reps office. Let's stop pretending all Sanders, Brown, and Warren can do is tell you it's secret. That is just not true. There is plenty to discuss.

ETA: and if they did do that we might have a few conservative voters holding republican feet to the fire. Sanders, Brown, and Warren are doing all of us a disservice at this point.

[zipplewrath]

27. Actually some do

Especially Warren, it is very common for her to discuss specifics in detail. It is what sets her apart. She reads AND understands and also then explains to her voters.

The devil is in the details and it is the details that cannot be discussed.

[MaggieD]

30. They should all drop the "it's secret and nefarious" schitck

Because in this case the devil seems to be very apparent in the framework. The "Obama is keeping it secret and there is a gag order" is not helpful to the cause, or Democrats as a party in general. It's no different than any other trade pact in respect to the details are not known under the deal is finalized. They have changed a million times already over the past 7 years since the US has been involved in them. They will continue to change while the deal is being negotiated.

IMO, she and others should be talking about reality. Why it's bad. Why it would be better to try to use more muscle to change the framework as we know it (because we DO know it), and/or why we'd be better off pulling out all together rather than sign on to a trade pact that is going to happen with or without us, if they in fact believe that.

I, PERSONALLY, have educated myself on the framework, so this "it's secret because mean old Obama won't let us talk to the public about it" is bullshit.

[zipplewrath]

34. It is secret

It's not a very well kept secret, but certain portions are still in work and those portions are relatively unknown outside of the negotiating team. But it is pretty clear that it is going to be very unpopular, because:

1) They are pushing for the TPA prior to being able to release details and
2) The White House hasn't been leaking anything about it.

With all of the push back, if the White House thought that they could sell this to folks like Warren et. al. by releasing some details, they would.

[MaggieD]

38. Not a secret

Here - live it up https://ustr.gov/tpp

[zipplewrath]

39. That's not the text

Congressmen can only read it, take no notes, and not discuss it with their staffs. And some sections aren't even finished yet. Union reps have seen some early portions and they can't discuss what they've read either.

[MaggieD]

41. Did you read the framework?

Tell me your top three objections and please quote facts.

[zipplewrath]

45. Yes

I don't like how it sets up the race to the bottom in wages and labor.
The protections for labor in other countries are not specific.
The environmental protections aren't clear either, especially in the context of the ISDS.
Truth is, I'm not really comfortable with the ISDS in general. When you see how the tobacco companies have used similar provisions in other agreements, it isn't something that inspires confidence.

But that's four so I exceeded my limit.

[Plucketeer]

58. I think I can get you on MSNBC

if you're willing, that is. Maybe Rachel could summon Senators Warren and Sanders so you could educate them. We'd ALL benefit from that. What say?

[zeemike]

62. They are selling us a pig in a polk.

I used that colloquialism before on this same point you make and I use it again here.

The framework you speak of is the polk and the text of the agreement is the pig...we should look at the pig before we buy it...or we are being suckers.

[wildbilln864]

69. reminds me of those28 pages hidden from the public

showing that the Saudi elites helped facilitate the 9/11 attacks by financing them.

[daleanime]

35. Wonder how many pages a day that will work out to....

not that we will be listen to then.

[Dragonfli]

47. It should be released BEFORE fast track is what they are saying, obviously, but you know that /nt

[Luminous Animal]

11. They mean that the public should see the bill prior to a fast track vote.

[TheKentuckian]

56. If you pass fast track, how would you stop it if the TeaPubliKlans want it?

Every single Democrat and aligned independent don't equal 50% +1 in either house.

You are giving the Republicans the ball, Democrats cannot stop it once this is set in motion. You are depending on fucking TeaPubliKlans to do what is best for the American people, that is a very practical definition of insanity.

You can holler comment periods and debate all you want but the numbers and who is on what side strongly indicates that it is all a show to distract folks from the fact that the train had already left the station.

[marym625]

81. hyperbole? ; no, it's common sense.

Nothing would be changed even if every comment was negative. Nothing could be changed even if every American said it was bad.

It would be a straight up or down vote. The Republicans that want it would pass it and the president would, obviously, sign it.

That's not hyperbole. That's a serious problem

[Thinkingabout]

4. Congress needs to change the law. They do have power to chansge laws.

[yourout]

5. If everyone knew what was actually in it the uprising would be bad enough to kill it..

No way they can allow it to be public before the vote.

[MaggieD]

12. Well then everyone is too lazy to educate themselves

There is plenty known about it to know it's bad.

[bvar22]

82. It is a luxury to be able to spend a couple of hours a day on DU.

Most of the people I know that punch-a-clock are too damned tired to "educate themselves" after they get home from work. 30 mins of Government Approved TV is about all they have time for.

Victim Blaming leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

[MaggieD]

83. If I only had a few hours....

I would expend it informing myself instead of posting about things I wasn't informed about. But that's just me.

[lamp_shade]

8. They want the public to see the DRAFT? Seriously?

[djean111]

9. If the alternative is to not let the public see anything until Fast Track guarantees nothing can

be changed, then YES, let us see the draft. This is the bullshit that is being pushed, that we will get to see it - but only after Fast Track is rammed through, which is too late.

[MaggieD]

13. No, that is not true

Ugh.

[djean111]

15. What is not true? Will the public get to see the finished product before Fast Track is in force?

"Ugh" really is not very helpful.

[MaggieD]

16. Do you understand the purpose of Fast Track?

You cannot realistically negotiate a trade deal with 15 other countries and then let congress change this line and that line in the trade pact. That's not the way the real world works. If every country did that there would be no trade pacts.

The congress can vote up or down on the finalized deal. And it IS going to pass because of bunch of us sat home during the mid-terms and republicans now run congress.

No Fast Track, no trade pacts. Which would be fine with me, actually. But reasonable people can disagree on that, IMO.

[djean111]

17. Well, I did not sit home. Anyway, looks like, for whatever reason, the public will not

be able to see the finished product before Fast Track, and, as you say, the GOP and Obama are intent on the Yes vote. If this thing is as bad as I think it is, it will affect my voting and support forever.

Other countries have people demonstrating against these "trade" agreements, too. Not just us. This really is a good demonstration of how most of Washington works for business, not for people.

Edited to add - yes I understand how Fast Track works. People keep saying oh, the public will be able to see the TPP before it is voted on - when they know damned right well, that's all the people will be able to do - is see it.

[MaggieD]

18. Again, not true

I will be lobbying my reps hard to vote against it during the mandatory 60 comment period, and I hope all of us do.

I just think it's kind of silly to debate a draft product, especially knowing that Obama is going to try to make the best deal he can. But even if the congress votes it down it will simply happen without US involvement. There is no question about that.

I am on the fence as to whether it would be better to get the best deal we can, or to stay out of it altogether. And I sure would appreciate if Sanders, Warren, and Brown would get on the reality train and talk about that instead of this BS that it's secret. There is nothing secret about the basic framework.

[Dragonfli]

48. You keep saying it is not secret, show me a link to the text or you are a liar.

We have three leaked chapters, that's it. If it were not secret they would not be called leaks and we would have more than three chapters. I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to cloud the issue with stubborn untruths.

[Phlem]

60. Crickets.

[raindaddy]

33. Obama Keeps Telling US This Bill is Good For The Middle Class, Trust Him...

Why not simply show us? What's he afraid of? That there will be such a backlash it'll fail?

[Maedhros]

21. Why do you object? [n/t]

[pampango]

23. Republicans wanted the draft of the Iranian negotiations released. No president will do that.

When you conduct international negotiations, one way to sink those negotiation is to unilaterally decide to publicize the details of those talks.

[RiverLover]

22. R&K! And big thanks to our amazing DEMOCRATS working for OUR benefit!!

Can't believe some people are against this here at DU.

Speechless.

[EndElectoral]

24. The Whitehouse needs to read their own webpage on transparency

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/

"Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use."

This TPP fiasco isn't exactly following those transparency tenets you espouse.

[MaggieD]

31. No trade pact discloses details while in negotiation

Same with treaties. That's just negotiation 101. Sadly, Warren and Sanders are acting like this is something new or unheard of and I can't understand why. Makes no sense to me.

[WillyT]

28. Huge K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[raindaddy]

29. 100% Behind Warren and Brown!!!

[MaggieD]

32. So can you articulate specifically what you oppose in the TPP?

We know the basic framework. So can you tell us which things you oppose?

[raindaddy]

37. Yes.. The idea of the possibility of a foreign corporation given the opportunity to overturn...

local, state and federal laws because they feel they stand in the way of their profits turns my stomach..

We've seen the biggest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the 1% in modern history...After watching the too big to fail, fraudulent banks get away with crashing the economy and after watching Obama cave on tax cuts for billionaires, I like many other liberals are in no mood to watch this president team up with the republicans to fight for more power and profits for global corporations...

[still_one]

49. If the final agreement has that, is that Constitutional? It sure doesn't sound that a trade

agreement can over-ride our laws, and that would be Constitutional?

[raindaddy]

52. This SCOTUS thinks coporations are individuals

So what's Constitutional anymore is anyone's guess...

[still_one]

65. That isn't my question. How can a corporation over-rule a law Constitutionally? At the minimum,

wouldn't that need to be tested in the courts if it passed?

[raindaddy]

66. They can test it all of the way up to the SCOTUS

How many years and how much $$$ would that take? Collecting every American's private communication also doesn't seem Constitutional either but they seem to be doing it.

[treestar]

86. It's impossible.

All of our laws have to be enforced - they can't be overridden by trade agreement. Only by another Act of Congress, signed by the President.

That's why some of this is CT type stuff.

[RiverLover]

36. FYI, the TPP makes it illegal to favor local businesses and more nasties...

http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/20/trade-rule-makes-illegal-favor-local-business-newest-leak-shows-tpp/

Its worth the time to read & learn, for those of you that think it's just peachy.

[ucrdem]

40. This comes dangerously close to dog whistling

especially since Warren has already gone to print with the "details," including this Feb. 25 op-ed in the Washington Post:

One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html

I personally hope that they let this foolishness drop and get on with their work.

[MaggieD]

44. Exactly

[still_one]

50. Wouldn't that be challenged on its Constitutionality?

[Cha]

59. Thank you for that, ucr.. I'm losing respect for her.

[raindaddy]

64. It's a political battle between Obama, the Republicans, global corporations and the progressive Dems

that is their work.
I find it interesting that Obama keeps telling us this is good for us but he hasn't said exactly why. So if as you said Warren and (a member of his own party) has brought up a specific that she feels has dire repercussions, allowing corporations the "possibility of undermining our sovereignty"... Address the issue Mr President!!!

It's time for this President to end the indigent suggestion that we need to trust him and start treating the American people to the same red carpet he's rolled out for the global corporations...

[treestar]

85. As usual, they don't say why the playing field would tilt - they seem to think they don't have to ex

explain their position. The sovereignty argument is BS CT sort of stuff. What, the Aussies are going to rule over us?

[ucrdem]

87. She's staking out a rather dubious territory and has a lof of wind in her sails

That could spell trouble if she declares as an independent, which is where this seems to headed, though I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

[Thespian2]

42. K & R, hugely

More power to our progressive senators...Warren, Brown, Sanders...

[KoKo]

46. Recommend!

[jalan48]

51. I honestly think most Americans have no idea what the TPP is.

Warren is doing the public a service by raising a stink. How can we have a real public debate when most Americans are unaware of the TPP?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

53. "Obama" trade deal? Not sure I like that phrasing

[MaggieD]

68. Yeah, don't blame you

Because it's not an "Obama trade deal."

[blkmusclmachine]

54. https://scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/obamafrustratedslider.jpg

[polichick]

57. k&r

[colsohlibgal]

70. I'm 100% With Sanders, Brown, Warren Etc

I trust them much more than I now trust Obama, and for a lot of reasons. I don't think they are out of line at all.

[treestar]

84. Why didn't they say this about all prior trade deals?

And all prior treaties?