Question about TPP...is Elizabeth Warren lying when she says Congress can't stop TPP?

[Cali_Democrat]

Last edited Fri Apr 24, 2015, 06:30 PM - Edit history (1)

This excerpt from an article caught my eye:

<...>

When Senator Warren calls TPP a “top secret” deal, she’s not telling you the truth. Any member of Congress can see it now, and before Congress votes on it, the final deal will be posted online for 60 days. What we can see now is the USTR summary of the deal, which, granted, isn’t the deal, but it isn’t nothing.

Finally, when Senator Warren says that the TPA bill leaves us “virtually no ability to stop it from the Senate or the House,” or concern-trolls about “fixing” a final deal through an amendments process that TPA shuts off, she’s not telling you the truth. The final deal, after its 60-day public review period, will receive an up-or-down vote, which means Congress can quite easily stop the deal. It just means that a minority in Congress can’t obstruct the deal. Ditto the amendments, which would not be a way to “fix” a final deal since the other 11 nations involved would also insist on that authority, irreparably gumming up the negotiations. Amendments, in this case, are a way to obstruct a final deal. See “nuclear deal, Iran” once again.

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/04/elizabeth-warren-is-not-telling-the-truth-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal/

Who should we believe in a case like this? I'm generally opposed to these free trade agreements, but I'm a firm believer in honest debate. I haven't followed this specific trade deal as closely as others, so I have two very simple questions:

1) Can Congress view the deal right now?
2) Will Congress be able to have an up-or-down vote on the deal?

I've never thought of Elizabeth Warren as a liar, but in this case it appears as though she may have lied.

[OKNancy]

1. not lying, but maybe doesn't know all the facts... or is being advised

by someone who is pushing her in that direction.
OTOH... who knows? I'm waiting to see all the facts myself.

[Jackpine Radical]

34. It's a semantic matter--Who does she mean by "us" or "we" here?

I believe that she was referring specifically to the Congressional opponents of the bill.

We, the opponents of the bill cannot stop it.

Obama chose to misconstrue it as "We, the Congress…"

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Third question

is congress allowed to share the information it sees, and if so, why not post it for everyone to read?

[Cali_Democrat]

3. There's a 60-day-public viewing period.

It's my understanding that Congress, including Liz Warren, can see the full deal right now.

So it's not top secret.

[Kelvin Mace]

8. Then why not post the agreement?

If it isn't top secret. The White House can do it right now and quash the whole argument.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. I agree

I do think it should be posted for all to see right now.

[okaawhatever]

16. Because it is not finalized. That particular claim is the one that bothers me the most. There

would be nothing worse than releasing an unfinalized draft of the deal. The worst thing that could happen is a bill being released to Americans that isn't complete. Americans think they are supporting one thing and then they change the final draft. It is not practical or smart to release anything that hasn't been finalized.

Why do you insist it be relased now? There is no reason for it other than the right wing pushing the left wing to get up in arms over this.

I want to know the TRUTH. It won't take me longer than 60 days to read it and respond to my congressperson. Why don't you want to know the truth?

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Good point. nt

[seabeyond]

20. this is how i am seeing it. why do you put out incomplete stuff before it is done?

that demand makes no sense. get 60 days to review and argue.

why are people acting like this is out of sorts.

[okaawhatever]

23. What bothers me is that most of the people demanding the release of it now sound like the

right wingers who watch Fox news and are completely misinformed. I suspect the right wing has noticed the divide here and is promoting it.

Sanders and Warren didn't help. I get that they were trying to stir up their base and raise money, but I don't agree with their tactics. I do feel like Warren and Sanders have been dishonest or misleading about the process. I even wonder if Warren was completely aware of the fund raising letter that was sent out. It doesn't seem like something she would do.

[seabeyond]

26. there is dishonesty going on when i am told it is secret and it is not. when told no one can talk

about it and they can.

pisses me off and i do not even like the agreement and want it to fail.

[Number23]

58. Interesting post. But why do you think that Warren and Sanders are doing this deliberately?

Or do you think it's as you said, to stir up their base and raise money? Surely a lefty in Congress would have to realize that is a losing position to put yourself in, given the current political climate.

[Kelvin Mace]

29. Because the drafts that have leaked so far

have been very alarming in the power they give corporations.

What guarantee do we have that there won't be last second additions to what is trotted out for the public to read? That is SOP for congress.

Also, all the billionaires want it, Wall Street wants it, the GOP wants it, the MPAA wants it, a virtual "who's who" of scum and villainy. That alone is reason to refuse to support the deal.

It is particularly insulting that Obama is pushing this far harder than he did far more important policies like the public health care option.

[99Forever]

66. Precisely!

[Luminous Animal]

32. The us government have posted drafts before at that were

Available for public viewing.

[JaneyVee]

24. Its still being drafted.

[Kelvin Mace]

31. Then post the updates as it goes

If he is going to nail our asses to this trade deal in perpetuity, then we should see the whole damned thing. When Obama leaves office to multiple seven figure boardroom jobs and eight figure book deals, we have to live with whatever deal he makes with the devil.

[sabrina 1]

9. And she is gagged as far as telling those she represents what is in it. Plus there are so many

restrictions on our Reps, see my post below regarding Sherrod Brown's statements about the frustrations and restrictions which he complained about for over a year, and was IGNORED by the WH.

If a Senator cannot get a response from the WH on a matter as serious as this, what chance do the people have of being heard?

He has angered his own party, treated them the way he SHOULD have treated Republicans, and now he's blaming them for his problems.

Just make this public, let Congress deal with it, no Fast Track, so we all know what is in it.

Because right now to the people who have the most right to know what is planned in their names, it IS secret, and even to the staff of members of Congress many roadblocks have been placed in their way.

When so many Senators are saying the same thing, showing enormous frustration, even anger at the way they are being treated, I believe them.

[seabeyond]

14. democracy now. grayson talking about it. why does he get to talk?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017259450

[Luminous Animal]

37. I don't see Grayson revealing details.

[seabeyond]

43. he clues us in to the specifics. i thought it rather relevant. helped me to decides where the bill

should go.

now you are telling me that it is cause he did not get more specific...

whatever.

honestly, i cant believe shit on this whole deal with either side. and that is the shame for me. i will wait for it to come out.

[Luminous Animal]

46. What specifics swayed you.

[sabrina 1]

49. He did not talk about what is in this Agreement, he spoke generally about the 14 other

trade bills and how badly they affected the American worker, this country's Trade Deficit. He knows enough, and so do we because we've seen the Wikileaks leaks. Those leaks told us how this bill will affect our Environmental laws, our Internet freedom, AND we learned, thanks to the leaks, that Global Corporations will be able to claim that our laws cost them money and they can sue this country to get that money.

This lawsuits will not in open courts, they will be in Corporate Tribunals with Corporate Lawyers deciding the outcome.

Thanks Wikileaks!

This is outrageous.

Amy asked Grayson if he had to rely on Wikileaks to get information on this deal. Because that is how she and we know anything at all.

He explains how he cannot take home copies of the tet so he can work on it, and confirms he cannot talk about the content.

So where did you hear talk about the content of this specific Agreement? We KNOW which mentioned, that 6000 Corporations will have access to our laws etc.

I did not hear him tell us what is in there regarding Labor laws eg, because he can't. Or what provisions are in there for workers pay, because he can't.

Did you watch the video?

[sabrina 1]

4. She is not lying, it is secret to us. WE are forbidden from seeing it, and SHE is forbidden from

telling us what is in it.

Sherrod Brown agrees with her. Under intense public pressure, after years of refusing to do so, the Admins was forced to allow Congress to view the Text.

But with so many restrictions, such as they had to go a room and were forbidden when they asked, to make copies to take home to study.

Brown eg, like most Senators, could not spend all his time in that one room. Congressional Staff members normally do that work and are free to go these places without being accompanied by their bosses.

However, for one whole YEAR, Brown tried to get a response from the WH regarding the fact that his assistant was NOT allowed to go that room if he was not with her. And something that is unprecedented, Staff would require security clearance equal to that of their bosses.

This prevented members from being able to do the job they wanted to do. Yet, for ONE YEAR even a Senator could not get a response from the WH.

Sounds like stonewalling to me after watching that exchange between Brown and the Admin representative. Brown became visibly frustrated with the answers was getting which were ignoring his complaint.

So it isn't just Warren.

I am so disappointed in him. He keeps his cool with Republicans, frustrating many of us for years when THIS is he should dealt with them. But slams and attacks a good Democrat.

This isn't making sense. He sounds desperate. Makes me wonder, WHO is pressuring HIM?

[Cali_Democrat]

5. So does Congress get an up-or-down vote on the deal?

If that's the case, then she lied when she said Congress has virtually no ability to stop it.

[TheKentuckian]

11. Democrats would have virtually no ability to stop it. The real point is of fast track is not to

prevent TeaPubliKlan shenanigans but rather to make sure Democrats can't stop it.

The enemy are the ones that chomping at the bit to pass the damn thing.

[sabrina 1]

17. Not unless they pass Fast Track and doesn't look like it will happen. Bush couldn't it, for obvious

reasons neither should Obama.

Bush tried this exact same thing in 2007. Dems refused to hand over their authority to negotiate Trade deals on OUR behalf which is their JOB. And some Republicans joined them

The reasons they gave then made perfect sense and WE all cheered them on, rightly so.

I'm stunned that people don't remember why that was voted down in 2007. It wasn't because of Bush, his term was nearly over. It was because it was WRONG to hand over that much power to the WH. Had it passed, Obama would have had it back then.

But that is too risky a thing to do now knowing who will be heir to all that power.

IF it passes, all they can do is either vote 'yes' or 'no' without have any ability to change anything, to add an amendment, to take out anything that is damaging to the people.

And essentially Congress would have reneged on their duty.

The chances of it passing this time however are greater than they were then.

Most Republicans support Fast Tracking, not all of them. And some of the usual suspects on our side, will vote for it with them. So since Dems are in the minority anyhow, it is scary to think that Congress could give up its power to properly represent us, to the Executive Branch. And they will not get it back for six years.

That authority will pass to the next president regardless if it's a Repub or Dem.

All I can say is anyone who votes for Fast Tracking on our side, is betraying the people they represent.

A large majority of Americans oppose this.

But then whoever listens to the people in DC.

[jwirr]

54. How is that - the Rs are for it and they control both houses.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. One other issue

If this is so damned cut and dried, then why are so many other people/groups besides EW worried about it? What we saw in the leaked drafts does not bode well for intentions of people getting pissed at us for "lying".

[Cali_Democrat]

7. If people want to oppose TPP, that's fine.

But people should be honest in their opposition.

[JI7]

12. i thought the doctors without borders was useful

Since it actually discussed specific issues and concerns.

[cali]

21. there's a fucking shitload of specific criticim of it and

Much of it has been posted here

[cali]

19. and president Obama can keep lying his ass off

Like the WH saying how much NRDC and the Sierra club like the tpp when they actually oppose it and lying about his opponents.

He is the liar aligned with the worst of the worst in pushing this.

I hope he fails utterly. If it passes he deserves all the blame

[Cali_Democrat]

27. It appears as though Warren lied when she said it's top secret and congress can't stop it

A debate is good to have, but it's important to have an honest debate without dousing your hair with gasoline and proceeding to light yourself on fire.

[cali]

36. 'she did not. it is classified under national security

She can see it but her staff cannot. She can't reveal the contents and she's probably right that it will be rammed through by the President and his right wing rebuke pals in Congress.

He's the liar. And he has a history of lying

[Cali_Democrat]

52. That's because it's not a final deal

The public will get to see the final deal once it's complete. It doesn't make much sense to prematurely publish a deal when it could be changed.

The fact remains that the final deal will become public.

Again, it's important for the debate to remain honest. Engaging in melodramatic outbursts is unproductive.

[tkmorris]

62. But... you are the one not being honest

"The public will get to see it" you say. Umm, right, but until then it is in fact secret. It is ILLEGAL for those who have seen it to tell the public what is in it. I am certain that you understand this so I can only conclude that your attempts to obfuscate are deliberate.

[Joe Turner]

63. What you are seeing is full court press PR campaign

from the administration to pass TPP and they started right out of the gate with trying to paint those that oppose TPP as liars and fanatics. The provisions of the TPP have indeed been kept under tight wraps since the beginning. Only at the 11th hour after years of going to extraordinary lengths to keep Congress in the dark are they now allowing highly restricted access to reading the agreement. And immediately they go on the offense with the claim that this agreement has always been out in the open. BS no triple BS

[Cali_Democrat]

65. And there will be a time when an agreement is reached and published.

Congress and the American public will get to review the full, finalized deal.

There will then be an up-or-down vote.

Seems fair to me.

[Luminous Animal]

13. Only those members with proper security clearances are allowed to access parts of the draft.

And because it is labelled top secret, those who have access are not allowed to take notes. Nor are they allowed to discuss contents with staff or relevant experts. And, of course, they are not allowed to tell us what they've seen.

Congress will be able to have an up or down vote. If you honestly believe a majority of millionaires in the house and the senate will reject this bill written for millionairs, I have a bridge to sell you in brooklyn.

[Ichingcarpenter]

22. 'Nor are they allowed to discuss contents with staff or relevant experts''

which is why what he says is a farce.

[okaawhatever]

28. Except that they are discussing it. A Sanders interview is posted above. Why are people continuing

that point?

[Kelvin Mace]

35. Are they discussing the deal in

general terms or specific details? Unless they are quoting pieces of the actual agreement they are just dealing in abstract generalities.

[okaawhatever]

41. Since it hasn't been finalized that is how they should be discussing it. It is not responsible or

honest to treat as fact that which isn't finalized.

Facts will be treated as facts when they become that There will be ample time to inform the American voter and for Congressional debate.
.
The entire meme about this being so secret is disingenuous. Releasing an unfinalized version of this bill will only lead to misinformation.

[Kelvin Mace]

50. Since it is our asses on the line

I think they should be posting summaries at the very least. I am not prepared to trust a government that has seen fit to continue so many Bush-era policies.

[okaawhatever]

51. And the process of posting summaries doesn't change anything you've mentioned and Obama hasn't

cosntinued so many Bush-era policies. That is ridiculous.

[Kelvin Mace]

57. Guantanamo is still open

Spying on Americans still tolerated
Troops still in Afghanistan and Iraq
Torture still legal since no one was punished
Whistleblowers punished, while bad guys skate
Murder by drone

That's enough to start with.

[okaawhatever]

60. Once again, absolute and total dishonesty. The only thing that comes close to the truth is

that Gitmo is still open (although one of his first actions was to sign an executive order to close it). The REASON Gitmo is still open is now because no country will take the detainees. Most of their home countries have refused return (they're scared of all those people you feel so sorry for) and Yemen is too unstable to send them back (their President won't take them anyway).

Obama changed the rules on gathering information (before Snowden)

The troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are there for training and are only allowed self-defense. Continuing the Bush-era policy would have had avout 30k troops there fighting.

Torture or waterboarding was ended by Obama. No Bush era policy there.

Whistleblowers have not been punished. That is another lie. None of the people prosecuted filed for whistleblower protection.

Laws of war regulate the usage of drones, it isn't considered murder.

Tell your b.s. to someone else. I've studied these issues too much to fall for it.

[Kelvin Mace]

67. The only lies are the pretty little

ones people keep telling themselves so they don't have to admit they were betrayed.

Innocent people are imprisoned at Guatanamo and Obama is complicit. People committed torture and murder, the evidence is overwhelming and Obama let them walk. Why troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan is irrelevant since they originally arrived under illegal pretense. Obama has allowed that pretense to continue. Using drones to murder people is still murder, just like torturing them is still torture, even if you have a legal fig leaf. People who told the truth about vile crimes are in prison while the people who committed the crimes walk free and hold positions of power and esteem.

Two innocent people are dead. Legal fictions makes no damned difference to them or their families.

[jwirr]

44. They can say they do not like it and what they think the effects will be but except for the leaked

parts they cannot release the exact wording or intent. They are doing what they can. And without the real content they are open to the kind of criticism that the president is giving them now.

[okaawhatever]

47. But there isn't "exact wording" yet. It hasn't been finalized, there is only proposed wording. nt

[jwirr]

56. Yes, I understand that which is why they are arguing in general terms of what they have seen so far.

[Marr]

48. Because it's true? /nt

[upaloopa]

15. What the hell good is a review if you can't do

anything about it. The repub congress wants the TPP. They voted for fast track.
Just bend over and assume the position.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. Fast track is out of committee but has not been voted on, it's passage is far from certain....

Good time to stand up and speak up, actually.

[Samantha]

25. I do not see how one considers this is a lie

Members of Congress can request to read the bill. The individual goes into a room and reads it. He or she cannot reveal what is contained in the bill. So what is the point there? You can read it but you can't talk about it? That is incredible.

Elizabeth Warren has read the bill. The fact she so publicly stands up and opposes it is very telling about what she thinks of the content.

Yes, there will be a public review/comment period but does anyone truly think there will be changes based on what a citizen says?

Having an up or down vote is simply an insult to members of Congress. Why can't they participate in determining the content of this agreement when lobbyists have? The lobbyists represent the corporations not the general public. This is truly outrageous.

Sam

[jwirr]

30. They can see it - 15,000 pages but they cannot take notes, bring in any staff to help remember

what is in it and they cannot talk about it to anyone else. I have never read a book with 15,000 pages so I have no idea how long it takes. Probably more than a day. Sure you can see it for all the good it does you.

As to not being able to stop it. TPA does have some clauses the keep anyone from changing it. As to stopping the TPP completely. I suppose it all depends on the votes. The Rs are for it and they do have a majority in both the Senate and the House. We will see.

[stillwaiting]

42. The corruption is so transparent it's laughable. 15000 pages. Damn! It shouldn't be legal.

Gives the opportunity for so many obscure loopholes to be embedded in it.

Maybe we just shouldn't have 12-member "trade" agreements if the legislation is so ridiculously cumbersome.

Especially if it will be next to impossible to amend it or exit it. Seems like a very bad idea.

[magical thyme]

33. members of congress could see TPP by appointment

in a special room, unable to take notes, unable to bring along a staffer. So technically, they were able to see it, but it was made as difficult as possible.

After many, many complaints, it has been (or is about to be) easier for them to review it and to even bring along a staffer. Still hard to do and I don't think they're allowed to take notes.

However, Congress must vote on TPA -- giving Obama the authority to make the deal -- without having reviewed it.

The deal ultimately will be published and they will then have 90 days to read it and then vote up or down, with no amendments possible.

That is in contrast to the huge multinational corporations, which have had free access and had a hand in writing it.

And I worry about 90 days to read it. It's taken 10 years to write this deal. That's 10 years to bury a lot of shit in legalese, and 90 days is NOT much time to consider the long-term ramifications of each piece.

[cali]

38. + a whole bunch

[Marr]

39. Here's another question. Why are the Republicans so gung-ho to help support something Obama wants?

The rest of his party-- you know, the people who will still be running for office in the future-- they don't want it. Obama, Republicans, and Corporate America do.

[pa28]

40. By "us" she means Democrats in the House and Senate and it's absolutely true.

Democrats in the House and Senate are left with virtually no recourse if the provisions laid out in the fast track bill are not met.

[okaawhatever]

45. Problem is, that isn't what she said. nt

[4139]

53. Fast track removes the filibuster ....

.... Both are stretching it a bit.

No to fast track! Then put in on the table and let it got through the regular process

[Agnosticsherbet]

55. The Senate and the House have been briefed on the TPP

There complaint that, at this time, is that it is classified and they can discuss any part of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/obama-trade-meeting_n_6881058.html

Fast Track limits the amount of time for discussion to 90 days, and requires an up or down vote and does not allow any modification or amendments. It also requires that during those 90 days that it can be read by interested parties. Once the treaty is signed and turned over to Congress for its approval everyone can see it.

If Fast Track authority is not passed Congress can amend the treaty, which would then be required to go back to all those who signed the treaty for their approval. There is no limit to the amount of time that Congress can take to read and vote on the treaty. As with a Fast Track deal, it will be open to be read by the public.

Congress is allowed to read classified documents, but they are not allowed take any notes, photographs, or reveal the information in the document as long as it remains classified. Technically, they should all be allowed to read the document.

Many treaties have been negotiated in secret. If those who are involved in sensitive negotiation are open to constant critique and complaint by a public it would likely make any treaty impossible.

For myself, the secret negotiations are not a problem. I do have a problem with Fast Track authority. This treaty is likely to be a very long document and there should be sufficient time for the public to read and understand it before the House and the Senate vote for it.

I am against Fast Track Authority. I think the House and Senate should jealously guard their power.

[Number23]

61. I am still learning about Warren and interested in what she has to say in spite of her fans here

But this bit:

Many supporters of President Obama, particularly black supporters, have long been suspicious of various white-wing liberals whose loyalty to Obama barely runs skin deep, and who ditch their support for him at the drop of a hipster hat.

...But on the substance, there is clearly no contest: President Obama is right, and Senator Warren is wrong.

Should have been bit that you highlighted in your OP. And it does appear that she is twisting the truth with her claims here.

[treestar]

64. Yea it seems rather basic that they could reject it

Not presidential material.

[ucrdem]

68. Well ... if she's asked, I would have strongly advised her not to go down this road.

But she didn't ask me.