Don't Sanders, Warren, or Grayson have Staff That Can Read the TPP? (Obama was Correct.)

[msanthrope]

Last edited Sat Apr 25, 2015, 05:55 AM - Edit history (1)

I just noticed something very interesting....for all our fellow Democrats complaining that they haven't been able to read the TPP, or have their staffers read it---note this--apparently, the TPP is available to EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS to read. At the Capitol. It is also AVAILABLE TO STAFF WITH APPROPRIATE SECURITY CLEARANCE.

WORKING HAND-IN-HAND WITH CONGRESS, THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATIVES

The administration has worked closely with the people’s representatives in Congress as we pursue our ambitious trade agenda. This has included:
•Providing access to the full negotiating texts for any Member of Congress, including for Members to view at their convenience in the Capitol, accompanied by staff members with appropriate security clearance.
•Holding nearly 1,700 Congressional briefings on TPP alone, and many more on T-TIP, TPA, AGOA and other initiatives.P
•Providing Members of Congress with plain English summaries of TPP chapters to assist Members in navigating the negotiating text.
•Previewing U.S. proposals with Congressional committees before taking them to the negotiations.
•Working with Congress to update them on the state of the negotiations and get feedback every step of the way.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/january/fact-sheet-transparency-and-obama

So Warren, Sanders and Grayson don't have staffers with a high enough security clearance? And now, they don't even have to go to the trade office---they can stay at the Capitol. So how is this deal not transparent? How is it secret? How....when the progressives we trust the most can read it? This is how representative democracy works---our elected representatives protect our interests. When they don't, we show up at elections and vote them out.

Heck---the question Democrats should be asking right now is why so many of our elected reps apparently haven't availed themselves of the opportunity to read what is available.


EDITED TO ADD---For all those wondering why elected members of Congress must sit with their staffers???? Thank Rep. Grand Theft Auto for getting his staffer to steal, then post the entire IP draft on his website. And shame on any Democratic Congressperson who didn't try to censure him then, and hold him accountable, now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/darrell-issa-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal_n_1521035.html

[diabeticman]

1. Below is the link of Rachel maddow's interview with Elizabeth Warren on this issue

Senator Warren has said ONLY congress members are allowed to go to a secret room to view the document. They CANNOT take notes and CAN NOT talk about it.

[msanthrope]

2. She's incorrect. Staff members with appropriate security clearance apparently can...per the Trade

Office itself.

Warren may not have chosen to employ anyone with that high a security clearance. Which begs the question---why not?

[TheKentuckian]

7. The elected official must be present.

[msanthrope]

9. Of course. I can't imagine either Warren or Sanders not wanting to be there. They also get plain-

language explanations of the chapters, so I suspect that's helpful.

Warren's mistaken--she can have a staff member in there. She's just got to pay one with a proper security clearance.

[newthinking]

14. The legislation is huge and made up of hundreds of pages.

There is no way without having copies and a staff with legal credentials spending not hours but many days to even work through a single reading.

[msanthrope]

18. Plain language explanations are availble for all chapters. Further....are you kidding me? If you

can't handle reading at least the plain language explanations on your own, you shouldn't be in Congress.

[sheshe2]

25. Boom!

Nailed it.

[msanthrope]

38. If Ted Cruz made these complaints, we'd laugh so hard we'd all pee ourselves.

But we are supposed to take seriously the complaints of Senators, who, to their horror, realize they actually have to sit in room somewhere and read a friggin' bill.

[GoneFishin]

49. Plain language. In other words, someone else's selective interpretation of selected parts.

That's bullshit as it applies to legal documents and you know that.

[msanthrope]

52. No--it's pursuant to the law.....

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr946enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr946enr.pdf

[GoneFishin]

57. Would you sign an important legal document based soley on a summary created by the

opposing party? of course not.

It's worthless. The devil is in the details. Especially when the corporate shill "trade representatives" have had years to weave carefully crafted phrases into the document to suit themselves and support their future assertions that they are entitled to free U.S. taxpayer money.

[merrily]

79. Don't get all accurate about this.

Stick to the truthy narrative, please.

[GoneFishin]

81. Oops.

[merrily]

85. Glad you're duly contrite. Not to worry. All is forgiven.

[msanthrope]

108. How is the US trade Office the opposing party? And if I thought they were, then I'd

damn sure make time to go read it, in full.

Jebus.....it's not like Congress is particularly busy with anything else.

[Hekate]

95. It's called an Executive Summary, and heads every complex document that ever crossed my desk...

....on the way to the Big Boss. When I worked for a civil engineer, the Exec Summary was written by engineers. When I worked in Labor Relations it was written by a professional in that field, some of whom had law degrees.

Every one of those documents had legal implications for the entity I worked for and for the person who signed them.

Truly not bullshit.

[GoneFishin]

148. Correct. But that is generally not an adversarial process. This clearly is. I know many here are

pretending that it is not. That in itself is a scam. Pretending that clean drinking water is not inconvenient to companies who find it cheaper to just dump their toxic sludge into any nearby body of water is a sham. Pretending that phony undeserved patent extensions are not an abuse of the patent system, or that they will not cost sick people billions more in pharmaceutical prices is a sham. This is an adversarial process between corporations and the U.S. public, but through scummy sleazebaggery the public has been kept from having any real representation in the negotiations.

[merrily]

77. No, that is what staff is for. Anyone who gets elected should be in Congress.

Sad sometimes, but true.

[msanthrope]

106. If you need staff to read plain language explanations for you, because you

are too busy to read them, whilst simultaneously fundraising on TPP "secrecy" then you really are playing the Far Left like a fiddle. That's what you think Warren is doing? Sanders?

They are too busy to read the agreement that is supposed to end democracy?

[merrily]

113. The "plain language" issue has already been addressed by other posters. It's a non starter.

And the rest of your post doesn't make any sense at all.

[Oilwellian]

51. I believe it's 15,000 pages

that would take months of continual study. Requiring the Congressional representative be there is absurd and only meant to limit their ability to study the treaty.

[GoneFishin]

60. Consider the fact that the trade representative weasels have had years to craft exactly the

language which they know in advance will support their claims for free U.S. taxpayer money. It's a goddamned license to steal.

"Here. I am going to write up some stuff for you to agree to. Now don't peek. Don't look at all the writing and stuff. I just want you to sign right there at the bottom. Ah, good job."

That type of sleazebaggery would not fly with the shittiest $25/hour attorney.

[Hekate]

68. Oh please.You get all the staffers together from a bunch of Senators&Reps & give them each 100 pages

...to read and summarize and flag with sticky notes and mark up with yellow highlighter.

[riderinthestorm]

69. Except they can't. Only staffers of Congress members on the Finance Committee

or the House Ways and Means Committee can go. That cuts the "bunch" down to 56 potential Congress members.

Furthermore, the staffers of those 56 who can read it have to have a certain security clearance level (Bernie Sanders for example doesn't have a staffer with sufficient clearance).

Furthermore, the Congress member has to babysit the staffer while they're reading it. Oh and nobody can take notes or bring any materials into the room when they read it. Oh and a staff member from the Trade Commission also has to babysit to make sure nobody does any marking or tagging.

And all of this by appointment only.

[msanthrope]

109. Any staffer with security clearance. Any member of Congress....that's how Grayson

read it, months ago.

[merrily]

84. That approach does not work with a long, complex, technical document. I'm not even sure it would

work with a novel. Continuity, context are important to knowing what the hell one is reading and why one is reading it.

[Hekate]

90. Actually, distributive proofreading works quite well when you set your mind to it

I did it in graduate school for a professor, along with other members of my class.

At DU during the BushCheney administration, there was some questionable document or raft of papers made public, and it was suggested that DUers could do the very thing I suggested. I don't think it came to anything in that instance, but it wasn't a bad idea.

[merrily]

91. you did that with international treaties of thousands of pages in legalese, with tons of

cross references, technical terms defined only once in the entire document, but used throughout, etc?

I don't think so.

[Hekate]

92. Why is it so unfeasible in your mind that a motivated group could do this research?

We've got people howling for transparency and demanding information, unhappy that it's an incredibly long and complicated document (which is probably the norm for international agreements, I should imagine), deciding they want a synopsis but sure something would be hidden ... yet when a possibility is presented to them that it might be able to be researched and synopsized, it seems undoable.

Oh well. I guess we'll just have to wait for the Big Reveal if our authorized representatives can't get their authorized staff to make it happen.

[merrily]

98. Not what I posted at all. Too late/early for me to appreciate the straw man.

[Hekate]

100. Not a straw man on my part, but if I misunderstood your intent...

...I'm sure we can resume on the morrow.

[zazen]

134. "proofing" or annotating any document by definition requires mark-up with pen/pencil or software package

[Historic NY]

132. Wait....lets not go there they said the same thing about health care bill....

when they had physical possession of the texts.

[dsc]

145. there is tape of Brown asking about this

and what he wanted to be able to do was have his staff member, who had the proper clearance, read it while Brown was home on break. That was denied. Making the Senator, who has important things to do, be there while a document with thousands of technically exacting pages are read, is utterly unreasonable.

[msanthrope]

149. Members have to babysit their staffers now, because of Darrell Issa---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026564546

Remember--Brown didn't condemn the leak, as I point out in that thread. So now, it's extremely hypocritical for Brown to complain that he has to babysit his own staff.

[dsc]

157. that is simply untrue

Issa, not his staffer, but Issa, leaked that. The staffer had not one whit to do with it from what you supplied.

[msanthrope]

158. Do you really think Issa was the one uploading? We aren't talking about car theft.....

do you really think Issa was the one who got the copy and transmitted it?

Asshole like him order staffers to do their dirty work. And the USTO responded appropriately. If assholes like Issa can't or won't control their staff...then the rest of Congress can suffer for it. Cronyism. It sucks.

[dsc]

159. even if he ordered the staffer to do it

and there is nothing in your link that states he didn't but ordered it instead, this still wouldn't help anything. All it did was make it impossible for Senators to have anyone see the agreement on their behalf if they are at home. That is a huge problem in a body that spends as much time out of town as the Senate does.

[msanthrope]

160. Well.....then the Senate should have addressed the breach at the time, not

sent a letter ignoring it and demanding more access.

[dsc]

161. No we shouldn't have stupid rules

This rule does nothing to prevent Issa, or his staffer, from doing the same thing again, but makes it all but impossible for the Senate to do its job. If you can't trust Issa, then don't let Issa in the room.

[msanthrope]

162. It is unfortunate that Senators have to show up to work. nt

[dsc]

163. their work is voting on things

it is not to baby sit staffers as they read thick documents written in legalese. Also, part of their job is to listen to constituents and meet with them, something they can't do if they are in DC. Brown can't represent the interests of Ohio if he is never in Ohio to find out what they are. It is nothing short of ridiculous to expect him to baby sit his staffer for hours on end so he can be briefed on the contents of something he is supposed to make a decision about. It should also be noted, that if he weren't on the finance committee but was just an ordinary Senator, such as say Barbara Boxer, his staffer wouldn't have any access at all.

[msanthrope]

164. Pay me 174k a year, plus perks, and I promise to find the time to read the

legislation I have sent out fundraising letters on.

[dsc]

165. then you would be a piss poor Senator

I sincerely hope that Obama hasn't read this agreement either. It isn't either one of their jobs to have done so. They have hired experts to do this. They are called staffers. Those are who should be reading the things, and point out what needs to be pointed out.

[riderinthestorm]

169. He re-published an old draft that had been put out the year before

There's no evidence in the article, or anywhere else that I can find, that he or his staff stole or leaked anything. The TR is putting in tighter controls because they're freaking out about the public's reaction to what's already getting out there.

Darrell Issa Puts Old Leaked TPP IP Text Up For Discussion
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120515/11044018927/darrell-issa-puts-old-leaked-tpp-ip-text-up-discussion.shtml

We've written a few times now about Rep. Darrell Issa, and the Madison platform his office has set up to allow for crowdsourcing opinion on legislation and other government documents. He originally used it for his OPEN Act, but then later posted the text of ACTA as well. His latest move is to post the leaked text of the US's negotiating position on TPP. This is the same text that leaked out last year. It would be nice if the USTR did something like this itself with the latest text, but that's not how USTR Ron Kirk works. To him "transparency" is only sharing the text with big industry special interests, and declaring it a matter of "national security" if anyone else wants to see it.

[msanthrope]

171. And who do you think was responsible for the leak the year before? Or do you just believe that

Issa just happened to stumble upon it and decide to put it up before the 2012 election?

Yeah--the Trade Office didn't believe him. I don't know why you do.

[amandabeech]

155. Warren was a professor of law at Harvard.

Plain language explanations would not be appropriate for her, but taking notes would be necessary, and that's not allowed.

[msanthrope]

156. Too bad. Thank Darrell Issa for that. nt

[rogerashton]

130. I beg you --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018753651

By the way, why should anyone need a security clearance to read a draft trade agreement? Secrecy classifications are meant to protect national security. And by the way, why should a free trade treaty need 15000 pages?

[msanthrope]

131. Why do you need a security clearance in this instance? Currency manipulation, counterfeiting, and

our drug supply are all national security interests.....plus, there's the fact that Congress already breached security on this....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026564546

[rogerashton]

138. I read your link.

If I understand it correctly you are saying that security is necessary because a Congressman has violated security. That's a good -- real! -- example of "begging the question."

A "free trade" agreement doesn't need 15000 pages. It would list the tariffs, quotas, and similar limitations on trade that are to be eliminated, and that might take a couple of hundred pages. The problem is that, to require 15000 pages, this must be a trade limitation treaty.

Well, free trade agreements don't occur in the actual world, as free markets do not -- all myth. But here's a question: is there anything, in your opinion, that is NOT a national security interest? I would say that economic security is military security. Otherwise, government secrecy is totalitarian.

[morningfog]

3. Have any of those on your list said THEY can't read it?

Or have they said just that WE can't read it?

[msanthrope]

6. They've complained about transparency---specifically, about not having staffers be able to read it.

Bernie was pissed his putative campaign manager wasn't allowed in. Now we know that a Presidential hopeful apparently has employed a Congressional staffer/possible campaign manager who does not have the proper security clearance.

Diabeticman provided Warren's complaint, above.

[4now]

4. It makes it easier to lie about it

and raise money from the rubes.

[TexasProgresive]

5. What is the appropriate security clearance? n/t

[msanthrope]

8. I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.....

I kid, I kid!!!

There are various level of security clearances. But apparently, Warren, Sanders, and Grayson do not employ anyone with a security clearance "high enough." I suspect that is SSBI/TS.

[joshcryer]

24. I'm sure they do.

I like this no BS Obama.

[joshcryer]

23. Confidential.

Which doesn't even require a background check in sine cases. It's the lowest possible.

[Hekate]

93. Jeez, I had that rating in 2 or 3 jobs just by virtue of working for the Big Boss. It means keeping

....your mouth shut about what crosses your desk and what you overhear. Not everyone is able to do that, but in my opinion anyone hired to work in Congress should have that as one of their min-quals from the get-go.

[joshcryer]

94. That's why I was surprised the committee requires a babysitter.

Pretty ridiculous. They should be able to send a staffer with the requisite clearance down there to make a copy. But apparently they have to be babysat as they read it.

[msanthrope]

120. Thank Rep. Grand Theft Auto---after he leaked on his website, the USTRO imposed that measure.

But our Senators at the time lacked the fortitude to denounce that......and now, conveniently forget about it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/darrell-issa-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal_n_1521035.html

[joshcryer]

123. Holy shit, now it makes sense.

That explains a lot.

I understand fully why committees don't want leaks, they want to keep the documents in their committee. They don't want outside chatter or influence. But it shocked me about the babysitter because common sense tells you people should be able to send a staffer to get a copy, it's not that controversial.

So here we have Issa doing a leak after getting the information through regular channels and rather than stripping his stupid ass of his confidentiality credentials, they just tighten up the ship. They could've stripped him of credentials but I guess that's hard to do when the confidential rating is literally the lowest bar and he didn't even get reprimanded for it. Say, "bad Issa!" he can just get another Rep to go get copies, etc.

This sucks so much. Because in the end the Republicans cause some bullshit measure to take place and the Democrats get shit for it (and some Democrats shit on the process to score political points).

I fear not a damn thing is going to happen to protest the passage of TPP. Hope I'm wrong.

[msanthrope]

124. I started a new thread on this point. It's worth discussing.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026564546

[joshcryer]

125. I GUARANTEE you that no one will credit Republicans.

Not a damn person bashing Obama will give one fucking shit that the Republicans caused that to happen.

God almighty. I fucking can't get over how Republicans get so many passes day in and day out here. It is literally repulsive.

edit: and you know those pieces of shit Republicans are sitting around their dining tables laughing about how fucking Darrel Issa forced a policy implementation that is causing the Democrats to eat their own. Utterly fucking disgusting. It's some damn House of Cards shit.

[msanthrope]

126. It's Ratfucking, 101. The Republicans do wrong, the Democrats blame the President, who, at this

point, probably wants to buy each member of Congress their own personal copy of House of Cards, and shake them......

And note that none of the prolific OP writers on DU seem to remember this point about Issa and the TPP.

[joshcryer]

127. I didn't even know about it.

I fucking wished I looked into the whole "why are they babysat" thing but I was cynical as hell at the time. Should've went with my gut. Makes no sense for a credentialed staffer to not be able to get a damn copy for their rep. But with this revelation, it makes absolutely perfect sense.

[msanthrope]

128. Wouldn't you expect frequent OP writers on the TPP to know this? I've written 2 OPs on the TPP, and

I know this. After 20 seconds of research.

I wonder why the most frequent OP writers on the TPP apparently don't know this.

[joshcryer]

129. I mean, I don't know.

It's been 3 years since that happened so people forget stuff. But it shows the cynicism that this kind of discussion fosters. Rather than thinking straight, looking for answers, we go on talking points and arguments. I failed that time because I should've checked into it. I have a vague recollection of it now, but it most certainly wouldn't have been triggered in the cynical toxic atmosphere I experience. This is a learning experience for me, I tend to try to check out sources (remember Sanders getting credit for the ACA exemptions?), but I messed up this time.

The story of last night / this morning should've been how Issa fucked over Democrats. Committees value their privacy (for good reason). Until Issa did his crap any congressperson could've got copies of the drafts.

[Agnosticsherbet]

153. If it is classified "Secret," you would need a "Secret" clearance and "a need to know."

All Congressmen and Senators hold a clearance that allows them to read anythng that comes through Congress.

They can apply for an aid to get a clearance, and that would require an investigation.

I don't have alot of use for people whose job it is to read the stuff they vote on and refuse.

[sabrina 1]

10. Wrong, Sherrod Brown explained all this regarding their Staff. Special clearance, unprecedented

they already have clearance.

No one is allowed to make copies, they can't take the text out of there and worst of all, Staff cannot go read and take notes UNLESS the Senators are with them.

Iow, they have thrown so many roadblocks in front of them to make it as difficult as possible for them to read it.

Sherrod Brown is furious. And rightfully so. For ONE YEAR he complained about his staff not being allowed to access the text without him being there, and he was COMPLETELY ignored.

To treat elected officials from your own party with such disdain and disrespect is simply reprehensible. No wonder they are all furious.

But the PEOPLE overwhelmingly support those Senators in opposition to this entire mess.

Maybe Obama should have treated those on his own side with more appreciation and respect, the way he treats Republicans before he demanded they set aside their legitimate concerns and blindly hand over their authority to someone who is calling them liars.

[msanthrope]

13. I quoted the Trade Office itself. If Brown doesn't employ people with high enough security

clearance, its his lookout.

And if Brown doesn't want to commit the time to reading the TPP, why should I listen to him?

[Oilwellian]

20. Except that's a lie

Watch the video I just posted in this subthread. Also, when Congress is in recess, staff can't have access. The congressional member has to be present while staff is reading the documents.

[msanthrope]

27. Which means staff does have access. Is Brown really complaining about having to show up for work?

Look, if a Republican Senator complained that he had to show up to his job, what would you say to them?

If the TPP is such a fucking wreck of the republic, then why isn't Brown GLADLY showing up to work and making sure his staffers are there? It's not like the Senate is overworking anybody.....

[Oilwellian]

33. Please do get real

You know it is the staff of our congressional members who go through Bills with a fine tooth comb. I can't recall any other Bill before Congress since Bush's effort to pass the Patriot Act, that these no notes, no copies made requirements were tacked on, can you? It's like Deja Vu all over again.

[msanthrope]

55. If the TPP is as bad as you say, isn't it worth reading in full? nt

[StoneCarver]

73. I smell a worm in Msanthrope

Judging by the number of defensive replies -thou doest protest too much. If you believe in democracy, the TPP has no place as a secret fast track treaty. What so wrong with it we can't see it? Msanthrope is running interference.
Stonecarver

[Hekate]

96. Re-read the thread. Msanthrope is not being defensive but trying to make people see reason....

Good luck with that, is what I say.

[Cha]

103. That's funny "I smell a worm in.." you.

[msanthrope]

107. We will see it. When it's done. In the meantime, our representative

democracy works as it should.

[Oilwellian]

17. Here's the video

The naked truth.

[msanthrope]

30. He's confirming that staff has access. Unfortunately, he has to show up to work that day, too. nt

[Oilwellian]

37. There's no reason why he needs to be there

It's absurd to demand as much for a 15,000 page document. Especially of a Senator who leads a very busy schedule. That's why they have staff. But of course you know that. Your argument is weak sauce.

[msanthrope]

42. If Ted Cruz complained he was too busy to read a bill, we'd savage him. If Brown cannot show up to

read the plain language explanations available for every chapter, while his staff handles the main text, then he deserves scorn.

If the TPP is such a fucking travesty and threat to the Republic, I think Brown can fit it in to his "busy" schedule.

Jesus.....pay me 174k in taxpayer money, plus perks, and healthcare, and I'll sure as shit read the 15,000 pages that's supposed to end democracy.

[Hekate]

99. Boom goes the dynamite. Nail, meet hammer. Got it in one.

Now that I've cliched myself to death, let me simply extend my kudos to you for that succinct appraisal.

Or shall we call it the Executive Summary?

[jwirr]

70. So all our elected officials have to do is set in a secret room all day so that their staff can do

what they are hired for? I also think that while you think it is okay to insult the elected officials I do not because in insulting them you insult the voter who elected them. That goes for our president to. Our congress persons are doing what we want them to do.

[msanthrope]

110. Wait a second...if I were a Senator complaining about the TPP, I'd want to read

it. I wouldn't rely on just my staff.....

Apparently Grayson found the time to read it.

[jwirr]

141. And what about all the other things they need ot do. What is reguired to read this thing is the

same kind of practice that says I need an ID to vote. The reading of this ought to be made easier not harder.

[msanthrope]

142. Indeed. Blame Issa. nt

[jwirr]

143. Now that I have no trouble believing!

[TheKentuckian]

111. Work isn't one issue, is your assertion that he should blow off all other responsibilities

to be in the room with staffers to review thousands of pages of documentation?

Why? What the fuck is the purpose of such a hoop?

[msanthrope]

114. Shouldn't he be reading it, too? At least the summaries? Especially if one is

going to fundraise off the issue? If you are going to claim that TPP ends democracy....then shouldn't you buckle down and read it?

This thread is interesting....because I'm starting to realize which DUers didn't read the leaked chapters in full, but relied on the Wikileaks summaries.

[MH1]

11. Let's talk about WHY the need for confidentiality.

Why not have the "negotiating texts" publicly available to anyone who wants to read them?

I suspect it is because they are negotiating texts. (You don't negotiate the price of a car by starting out with what you're actually willing to pay.)

The next question, is why not require that Congress approve the trade deal rather than giving Obama the fast-track authority?

I suspect it is because ... well just take a look at Congress, would ya??

Also, there's probably an argument that it would make it harder for Obama to negotiate.

[nationalize the fed]

12. Grayson has read it

and never said he couldn't

Rep. Alan Grayson: I've Seen The Details And There Is No Reason To Keep TPP Secret
edit-add date-Jun 24th 2013

Rep. Alan Grayson has apparently been allowed to see a copy of the latest text of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and he's mystified about why it's being negotiated in secret. As we've noted in the past, the USTR likes to claim how "transparent" they are because (1) they "listen" to whoever wants to talk and (2) they'll show things to Congress.

Neither of those things are "transparency." Listening to people is great, but transparency is about information flowing in the other direction, from the government to the public. As for showing things to Congress, we've explained how that's not really accurate. Elected officials in Congress can see the text, but they have to go to the USTR, where they can look at the document, but they're not allowed to take notes, make copies or bring any staffers (such as experts on trade or any of the issues in the document) with them.

Grayson apparently took the USTR up on that offer, and he says there's no reason that the text should be secret.

Because of this pressure, the USTR finally let a member of Congress – little ole me, Alan Grayson – actually see the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP is a large, secret trade agreement that is being negotiated with many countries in East Asia and South America.

The TPP is nicknamed “NAFTA on steroids.” Now that I’ve read it, I can see why. I can’t tell you what’s in the agreement, because the U.S. Trade Representative calls it classified. But I can tell you two things about it.

1) There is no national security purpose in keeping this text secret.

2) This agreement hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests.

3) What they can’t afford to tell the American public is that (*the rest of this sentence is classified).

(Well, I did promise to tell you only two things about it.)

Of course, the USTR argues -- ridiculously -- that the reason they can't share it is not because of "national security," but basically some crap about how they've never negotiated in public and somehow no agreement could be reached if negotiations were made public. But that's hogwash...more
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130622/01545623580/rep-alan-grayson-ive-seen-details-there-is-no-reason-to-keep-tpp-secret.shtml

[msanthrope]

15. Well, now Alan doesn't have to go the USTR--he and his aides don't have to leave the Capitol.

Good for him for reading it. When it's final, I expect he will have some excellent commentary.

[arcane1]

78. Another great Dem whom I trust on economics

[joshcryer]

16. We KNOW Warren (or her staffer) read it.

Her OP ed about ISDS is proof.

[msanthrope]

19. Indeed--what I find most surprising is that Bernie apparently doesn't have a staffer who can read

it.

[joshcryer]

26. If that is actually true Bernie has a problem.

Confidential material probably passes hands daily in the committees.

[hay rick]

21. Security clearance?

I had a security clearance when I had a job that exposed me to information about things like anti-submarine warfare, much of it classified, and the relationship to national security was obvious. I am skeptical that there is any legitimate "national security" interest in this trade agreement. What kind of "security clearance" do the corporate representatives involved in writing the agreement have? The security clearance issue looks (and smells) like a smokescreen to avoid public disclosure.

[msanthrope]

32. Currency manipulation, conterfeiting, and our drug supply aren't national

security concerns?

National security means more than just the things that go boom, like sub warfare.

[Octafish]

76. Those are the reasons why all those crooked big banks got shut down.

Oh. Right. Never mind. They're too big to jail.

[Oilwellian]

40. That's exactly what it is

It's an attempt to limit Congress' ability to study the actual documents. As I said above, I'm reminded of Bush's efforts to pass the Patriot Act. The same kind of ridiculous demands placed on Congress' ability to study the document.

I wonder what kind of security clearances were given to foreign countries involved in this treaty.

[merrily]

89. Didn't seem to me that Bush had much trouble getting that unconstitutional POS passed.

One not voting (Landrieu), one nay (Feingold)--both now gone.

98 yeas.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

Almost as many voted for the 2006 reauthorization, too. Ten nays, I think. And that was after a Republican dominated SCOTUS had declared some parts unconstitutional.

[99th_Monkey]

22. Why are the lucky few who CAN read the TPP, then gagged?

Why is security people lurking nearby?, then officials are gagged from
even being able to TALK ABOUT what is IN the TPP??

And how can there be ANY meaningful discussion or debate of the TPP
occur when our public officials are forcably gagged from talking about
the details <-- you know where the Devil dwells..

[msanthrope]

29. You mean our elected representatives, and those with the proper security clearance?

Funny---did you ask this question about the Cuba or Iran negotiations? They were secret, until final. Congress wasn't allowed to talk about them, either.

When it's final, we see the whole thing. This is how representative democracy works. This is why you have to elect decent representatives.

[99th_Monkey]

62. The Cuba & Iran deals were NOT written by greedy Mega-corporate Lobbyists & lawyers

Last edited Fri Apr 24, 2015, 11:40 PM - Edit history (1)

The TPP was/is expressly the creation of global corporations seeking solely to expand their already-fat profit margins, at everyone else's expense.

Secondly, the TPP was/is (supposedly at least) a TRADE agreement involving a bunch of other nations and huge global corporations, not a straight-forward bilateral agreement between only 2 nations.

These are huge differences, so comparing them as is absurd.

[msanthrope]

112. You really think big businesses aren't involved in our Cuba deal? nt

[99th_Monkey]

144. Apples & Oranges

Perhaps, as some businesses would stand to benefit from the Cuba deal,
but in a totally different way.

[sheshe2]

28. Kick....already reced

[MFrohike]

31. Sheesh

Your link is from January. Prior policy was that staff were not permitted to accompany the member. The fact that they now allow staff, who have to be precleared by the executive, is not being a shining beacon of truth.

I say precleared because it's the executive who hands out clearances, not Congress. Such a policy makes it easy for the executive to hand-select exactly who will be allowed to see the text. That's about as transparent as mud.

[msanthrope]

36. So you agree that members always had the ability to review? And now that staff with the proper

clearance can review, there's even more transparency? Besides....it's nearly May. It's not like Congress has been keeping busy--they've had plenty of time to read.

[MFrohike]

39. I do

Do you agree that Obama personally threatened Democratic members with jail time if they discussed the text in public?

[msanthrope]

43. Link? nt

[riderinthestorm]

47. Yes. You must have missed this (it even has an oblique Snowden reference)

LOL!

There won't be many specific gripes from Wednesday's meeting, however. It is a criminal offense to share classified information with the press, and the Obama administration has been exceptionally aggressive in prosecuting leaks for years.

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

[msanthrope]

50. Are you suggesting that is a quote from President Obama? nt

[riderinthestorm]

53. That's an excerpt from the linked article

which you obviously blew off reading.



Hint: the way it's formatted indicates it's an excerpt as well even if you didn't bother to open the article proving the point.

Someone looks silly...

[msanthrope]

54. I was promised proof that President Obama "personally threatened" members of Congress. Cite it,

please?

[riderinthestorm]

61. Unlike you in other threads that I won't call you out on, I can

WASHINGTON -- As the Obama administration gives House Democrats a hard sell on a major controversial trade pact this week, it will be doing so under severe conditions: Any member of Congress who shares information with the public from a Wednesday briefing could be prosecuted for a crime.

of course if you read the article you'd have been able to read that yourself. I can't speak to whether Obama "personally" threatened them, but how exactly do you interpret "Obama administration" if not the administration that's lead and directed in its actions by President Obama?

There's been no retraction that this was a mistaken interpretation.

[msanthrope]

116. I was promised proof that President Obama "personally threatened" members of Congress. As proof,

you provided Zach Carter's opinion from a month ago that members of Congress would be prosecuted if they talked.

I'm still waiting for you to provide proof that the President "personally threatened" members of Congress. I'd also like to know who those members are.

[MFrohike]

48. Ugh

I am busy looking for it and I fear I won't be able to find it. If I find it, I'll post it. If I can't, I'll retract the above.

[MFrohike]

56. I overstated it

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150317/05052630338/ustr-pushes-congress-to-approve-trade-deals-threatens-reps-with-criminal-prosecution-if-they-tell-public-whats-them.shtml

I spoke before I checked a source, so I was wrong. Sorry.

The threat is implicit, not explicit. It's also not from Obama personally.

[Number23]

170. Wow, that's awesome of you to realize that you overstated your initial point and apologize

Very cool.

[Cha]

34. Why are they acting so damn ignorant?

[msanthrope]

46. Money. You raise funds as you can....and the FDL wing always opens their coffers

on the ODS.

[Cha]

64. Yeah, I know.. it's pathetic. Elizabeth Warren is no better than anyone else.

Liz Warren plays political games too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6560570

Thank you for your thread, msanthrope

[onecaliberal]

35. Why is this a secret to begin with. How is this democracy when congress

Isn't permitted to share with the people they represent. If this trade bill was so great there wouldn't be need to secrecy.
NAFTA has been an epic disaster. How did we go from debating repeal of nafta to this deal?

[cheapdate]

41. I assumed this was probably the case,

that Barack Obama was truthful when he said earlier that congress members had access to the documents. Now I have confirmation. Thanks.

The part of the agreement that is of greatest interest to me, and I think to many others, would be any provisions regarding supranational courts. I've heard conflicting reports about what these hypothetical courts would and wouldn't be authorized to do.

I'd like to see the language as soon as possible so I can tell for myself what is being proposed.

[Andy823]

44. K&R nt

[99Forever]

58. What a fucking pantload.

An insult to any thinking person's intellect.

[99th_Monkey]

63. +1000 nt

[840high]

72. ... yep

[Cha]

86. "What a fucking pantload."

[Skittles]

121. yup

what's sad is......I am getting used to this dreck on DU

[think]

59. The 151 Democratic House members that signed a letter opposing Fast Tracking the TPP must

not have good staff either.

http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1455:delauro-miller-lead-151-house-dems-telling-president-they-will-not-support-outdated-fast-track-for-trans-pacific-partnership&Itemid=21

So apparently the only people who have no problems with fast track is the GOP and the 500 or so corporate advisers that helped craft it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-needs-the-aid-of-the-gop/2015/03/06/37213496-c365-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trade-deals-a-closely-held-secret-shared-by-more-than-500-advisers/2014/02/28/7daa65ec-9d99-11e3-a050-dc3322a94fa7_story.html

Go figure....

[bahrbearian]

65. ...

[midnight]

66. It isn't that they can't read it-They aren't allowed to discuss it.

[840high]

74. Why the hell not? All this secrecy.

[midnight]

82. That is Elizabeth Warren's point... And it's getting attention.

[Hekate]

67. Kick, kick, I want to kick something. >sigh<

[MannyGoldstein]

71. Enough.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026563632

This isn't fun and games. This is human lives.

[msanthrope]

118. If it's "human lives", as you claim, then shouldn't our Senators be reading it? Apparently Grayson

found the time to show up and read it....and that's when it was at the Trade Office.

Now it's at the Capitol, with plain language summaries. It seems to me that if you are going to fundraise off a bill, you should find the time to read it. Or at least....the summaries.

If Republican Senators claimed they didn't have the time to read a bill that involved "human lives" wouldn't you write an OP excoriating them?

[Andy823]

168. Very sad indeed

You make a comment like this when you have been using it for your "snark" for months now. Wow!

[LondonReign2]

75. Somehow you imagnine this bolsters your argument?

Wow. You're right, IF YOU JUST HAVE A HIGH ENOUGH SECURITY CLEARANCE you are allowed to gaze upon the document.

I feel the need to invoke the Mark of the BOG.

[Cleita]

83. This isn't the plans to prevent WWIII. So why is it being so protected and secret?

It's a trade agreement and should be available to everyone who wants to read it, all of it.

[Cha]

102. Yeah, you better invoke the BOG 'cause you have nothing. When all else fails.. blurt out the BOG.

[great white snark]

136. Desperation. His term is ending and they desperately need a colossal clusterfuck.

Something that will justify 7 years of their atrocious treatment.

I'm sure President Obama will be happy to disappoint them.

[Cha]

166. Well said, snark! I miss you!!

"Desperation. His term is ending and they desperately need a colossal clusterfuck.

Something that will justify 7 years of their atrocious treatment.

I'm sure President Obama will be happy to disappoint them."

[Andy823]

150. Yep

But speak ill about the PU group and see what happens! I asked a poster over there if they voted for Kerry since they had a thread going hinting that nobody should vote for Hillary because of her vote. All I said was "did you vote for Kerry"? I am still waiting for an answer, but another poster suggested my post be taken to the Hillary group. Guess they don't like to be questioned!

[Cha]

167. "Hypocrits" comes to mind!

Andy

[msanthrope]

117. Absolutely. Are you upset that the Administration did not provide you a copy of the Iran deal

before it was final? Which other pending deals and agreements do you feel the need to review?

[LondonReign2]

135. Let's see: National security vs. Trade agreement

You're right! They are exactly the same thing.

NAFTA has worked out so well, what could possibly go wrong?

[msanthrope]

137. Currency manipulation, counterfeiting, and our drug supply

are national security concerns. All in the TPP.

[KeepItReal]

152. Please provide a link to the text in the agreement that supports your point.

I'll wait.

[msanthrope]

154. The agreement isn't online yet. But if you look at the IP chapter that Darrell Issa

leaked, all three of those issues are raised.

I leave you to search his website.

[KeepItReal]

172. You claim all this stuff is the TPP but can't link to the original source material

Flimsy at best.

[Skittles]

122. it's all they have

I'm not sure whether to unload on them or just feel pity

[Cleita]

80. Why isn't it available to me and the rest of the citizenry to read online

or in the library like other pending legislation? Inquiring minds need to know.

[LondonReign2]

87. Oh, but you can read it!

That is, if you have a high enough security clearance, your elected representative sits with you the entire time, you agree not to take any notes, and you agree to never discuss it in public.

Smells like democracy, eh?

[Cleita]

88. I know. Ironic isn't it?

[MaggieD]

101. It will get the same 60 day notice

...and public comment period as any other trade pact. I know you all think you've discovered something here, but that's how the process works. They don't provide public daily updates of trade negotiations during the negotiation period.

I'm stunned at how ill informed people are on this issue while posturing as experts or something.

[Historic NY]

133. +1

[Cleita]

139. So then why can I usually see what's pending online and not this?

For instance, this pending legislation has a committee report that openly outlines what it's about:

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/114th-congress/house-report/92/1

The TPP does not:

https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22source%22%3A%22legislation%22%2C%22congress%22%3A%22114%22%2C%22search%22%3A%22TPP%22%7D

[MaggieD]

146. Because it's still in negotiations

... Where it has been for nearly a decade.

[msanthrope]

105. Because it's not pending legislation. It's in draft still. nt

[Cleita]

140. According to this it is pending legislation:

https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22source%22%3A%22legislation%22%2C%22congress%22%3A%22114%22%2C%22search%22%3A%22TPP%22%7D

Much of the other pending legislation is in draft and it's online.

[MaggieD]

97. Exactly.

[Kip Humphrey]

104. It's no secret, then... Guess you've read it. I've read it, haven't you read it? Oh yeah,

....WIKILEAKS.



Sorry, you have to argue TPP AND TTIP on the merits in open, public debate before I buy any of it.

[msanthrope]

115. I will read it, when it's pending legislation. It will be available to

everyone. Of course, then, I'll get to see how many fellow DUers join me in reading it.

[joshcryer]

119. Same here.

I might even bother myself to read the annexes which will be pretty boring. But I gotta know what deals some countries are getting.

My bet is that in two days the media will have scoured it completely. If ISDS is all they got then that thing is going to pass without much fanfair.

[MaggieD]

147. LOL - not many, I'll bet

There is a ton of info out already and it's perfectly clear to me they haven't read that.

[ananda]

151. It's the secret shit that bugs me!

If this agreement cannot be revealed to everyone,
then it is no good for anyone except the rich
and corporate!

[Agony]

173. You forgot the photographic memory part...

and the bionic eye, the security clearance isn't the worst of it.