General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA reminder to the Fast Track supporters. 151 House Democrats signed a letter opposing it.
So while Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell work hard to get the Fast Track authority remember these folks are on the record as being opposed to it:
~Snip~
The full letter is as follows:
Dear President Obama:
We write to express our serious concern with the ongoing negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement (FTA), a potential agreement of tremendous consequence for our country. Specifically, we remain deeply troubled by the continued lack of adequate congressional consultation in many areas of the proposed pact that deeply implicates Congress constitutional and domestic policy authorities.
For some time, members of Congress have urged your administration to engage in broader and deeper consultations with members of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the numerous issues being negotiated. Many have raised concerns relating to reports about the agreements proposed content. While your Administrations goal was to sign a TPP FTA at the October 2013 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, we believe that to date the process has failed to provide adequate consultation with Congress.
Such opportunity for input from Congress is critical as the TPP FTA will include binding obligations that touch upon a wide swath of policy matters under the authority of Congress.
Beyond traditional tariff issues, these include policies related to labor, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural resources, the environment, professional licensing, competition, state-owned enterprises and government procurement policies, as well as financial, healthcare, energy, e-commerce, telecommunications and other service sector regulations.
In light of the broad scope of todays trade agreements, it is even more vital that Congress have a fulsome role in shaping these pacts terms. Given our concerns, we will oppose Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority or any other mechanism delegating Congress constitutional authority over trade policy that continues to exclude us from having a meaningful role in the formative stages of trade agreements and throughout negotiating and approval processes.
Congress, not the Executive Branch, must determine when an agreement meets the objectives Congress sets in the exercise of its Article I-8 exclusive constitutional authority to set the terms of trade. For instance, an agreement that does not specifically meet congressional negotiating objectives must not receive preferential consideration in Congress. A new trade agreement negotiation and approval process that restores a robust role for Congress is essential to achieving U.S. trade agreements that can secure prosperity for the greatest number of Americans, while preserving the vital tenets of American democracy in the era of globalization.
Twentieth Century Fast Track is simply not appropriate for 21st Century agreements and must be replaced. The United States cannot afford another trade agreement that replicates the mistakes of the past. We can and must do better.
We are deeply committed to transforming U.S. trade policy into a tool for creating and retaining family-wage jobs in America, safeguarding the environment, maintaining consumer protection and improving the quality of life throughout the country. We look forward to working with you to ensure that Congress and the Executive Branch are working together to meet that critical goal.
Sincerely,
Rosa L. DeLauro
George Miller
Louise M. Slaughter
Nydia M. Velazquez
Bennie G. Thompson
John Conyers, Jr.
Jim McDermott
Nick J. Rahall, II
Robert A. Brady
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
Michael H.Michaud
Marcy Kaptur
Linda T. Sanchez
Peter A. DeFazio
Sam Farr
James P McGovern
John F. Tierney
Frederica S. Wilson
Andre Carson
Niki Tsongas
Patrick E. Murphy
Zoe Lofgren
Alcee L. Hastings
Tim Ryan
Michael M. Honda
Betty McCollum
Barbara Lee
Gary C. Peters
Ed Pastor
Henry A. Waxman
Lloyd Doggett
Chellie Pingree
Daniel T. Kildee
Janice D. Schakowsky
Danny K. Davis
Jerrold Nadler
José E. Serrano
Chaka Fattah
Timothy J. Walz
Timothy H. Bishop
John A. Yarmuth
Elijah E. Cummings
Peter Welch
Albio Sires
Steve Israel
Maxine Waters
Loretta Sanchez
Ann McLane Kuster
Yvette D. Clarke
Anna G. Eshoo
Carolyn B. Maloney
Carolyn McCarthy
Cheri Bustos
Bobby L. Rush
Elizabeth H. Esty
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.
Daniel Lipinski
Paul Tonko
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Richard M. Nolan
Brad Sherman
Brian Higgins
Carol Shea-Porter
Corrine Brown
John D. Dingell
Donald M. Payne, Jr.
Gene Green
Lois Capps
Jared Huffman
Julia Brownley
William L. Enyart
Michelle Lujan Grisham
Rush Holt
Alan S. Lowenthal
Daniel B. Maffei
Alan Grayson
David Loebsack
Mark Pocan
Terri A. Sewell
Al Green
Grace Meng
Sean Patrick Maloney
Frank Pallone, Jr.
Joyce Beatty
Adam B. Schiff
Judy Chu
Stephen F. Lynch
Keith Ellison
John Lewis
Ben Ray Luján
Emanuel Cleaver
John Garamendi
Peter J. Visclosky
Luis V. Gutiérrez
Michael F. Doyle
David N. Cicilline
Donna F. Edwards
David Scott
Lucille Roybal-Allard
Matthew A. Cartwright
Raúl M. Grijalva
Hakeem S. Jeffries
Marcia L. Fudge
Jackie Speier
Lois Frankel
William R. Keating
Eric Swalwell
James R. Langevin
Robin Kelly
Joseph P. Kennedy
Robert E. Andrews
Steve Cohen
Steven A. Horsford
Gloria Negrete McLeod
Tulsi Gabbard
Ron Barber
Joe Courtney
John P. Sarbanes
Raul Ruiz
Jerry McNerney
Dina Titus
Bill Pascrell, Jr.
James E. Clyburn
Sheila Jackson Lee
Mark Takano
Bruce L. Braley
Ann Kirkpatrick
Karen Bass
Juan Vargas
Janice Hahn
Nita M. Lowey
Eliot L. Engel
Grace F. Napolitano
Gwen Moore
Filemon Vela
Beto ORourke
Mike McIntyre
Robert C. "Bobby" Scott
G. K. Butterfield
Theodore E. Deutch
Kyrsten Sinema
William L. Owens
Hank Johnson
Kathy Castor
Collin C. Peterson
Ruben Hinojosa
Allyson Y. Schwartz
Kurt Schrader
Colleen Hanabusa
Scott Peters
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
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Right?
Autumn
(44,762 posts)Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have joined our President and are working hard with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to get this passed for the good of the American people.
Haters all of them along with a bunch of Democrats from the Senate. And their staffer all suck too cause none of them can read.
Did I get it all?
Wow is the world fucked or what.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Our government is in the grip of multinational corporate interests to such a large extent today that for all intents and purposes we live in a plutocracy (Princeton Study).
Since I do believe that's the case, these "trade agreements" that are so massive in scope simply can not be conducted amidst such secrecy any longer when so much is at stake and they would be so difficult to amend or exit.
It is clear that TPTB are putting in all kinds of corporate goodies that they most likely couldn't pass through regular legislative efforts so it's time to shut down this Fast Track process. And, I don't care if Bernie Sanders becomes President. I'd be against it for him too.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)The overwhelming majority of house dems oppose it. This has nothing to do with the bullshit claim of gods or racism or whatever disgusting false charges you habitually toss out.
You want to unquestioningly trust the President on everything as you've boasted you do? Fine, but accusing those who don't support him on this or other issues of being motivated by deranged hatred or racism? That is behavior that is shameful.
Shame, shame, shame on you, fred
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)They don't say they oppose it completely. Amendments to the TPA may satisfy many of them.
procon
(15,805 posts)They all want to tuck in their own bits... a new defense contract for the workers back home, another hit job on gays, women, immigrants... and they can't, so its all doom and gloom rhetoric that "the sky is falling". When its release for public review, I suspect these same politicians will be talking out of the other side of their mouth.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)oppose it because they want to tuck in some anti-lgbt, anti-woman, and anti-immigrant legislation?
procon
(15,805 posts)Democrats are politicians, no less than Republicans. Given the opportunity, I have no doubt they'd find a few projects they love to see added too. So its a good thing none of 'em will be able to that.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)That is a list of democratic lawmakers, and you claim they are upset because they want to "tuck in" anti-gay, woman, etc, legislation
"They all want to tuck in their own bits... a new defense contract for the workers back home, another hit job on gays, women, immigrants... and they can't, so its all doom and gloom rhetoric that "the sky is falling". When its release for public review, I suspect these same politicians will be talking out of the other side of their mouth."
On edit-did a cut and paste from your post
procon
(15,805 posts)"They" being inclusive, is not limited to one group or the other. Find a better argument before jumping on that high horse.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)And there is a thing called "time" and a word called "topical".
n2doc
(47,953 posts)The second time I voted for him because the alternative was far worse. But he betrayed my trust in the first term enough to consign him to the "just another pol" camp. Nothing he has done since then has changed that opinion.
If HRC is the nominee I suspect I will feel the same way as I did in 2012.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Dynamic Duo to occupy the WH again and finish the job Obama began.
American liberal peace revolutionaries are maybe just too impatient, bless them, but don't revolutions without violence take time also to shake out?
Obama is transitional, not revolutionary. It took 70 years for the French Revolution to shake out, remember? Despite the TV and movie versions.
America needs maybe another 10 to 20.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)The ONLY time Obama fights hard, is when it's against non-neoliberal Democrats.
Disgusting.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Larkspur
(12,804 posts)Obama, who wants to model himself after our B rated president, Ronnie Reagan, did not earn my trust.
Most who voted for him were not Obama-bots.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Larkspur
(12,804 posts)who blindly agree with Obama on everything and are thinned skinned when Obama is attacked by Democrats and Progressives.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)That's the most disingenuous thing I've read in months.
You must really think we are idiots, don't you?
cali
(114,904 posts)I didn't want Romney to win, the second.
On some issues he hasn't earned my trust
whathehell
(28,969 posts)coming to Europe...Why are you so worried about this one?
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)in 2008. Did not vote for him in 2012.
And I should add: I've never trusted Obama. But, to be fair to Obama, I don't trust any politician.
edited
SMC22307
(8,088 posts)Plus 8 years of Dubya. I voted for Obama because of the "D" behind his name. Don't try to make it into any more than that.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)The first time I voted for him because I trusted him. The second time I voted for him because the alternative was completely unacceptable.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...it's basically the only way a trade deal can get done and trade is VERY important to the American economy and ALL of the American people.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... what's good for our country, Brent. As he said, if we aren't engaged and leading the process, we will be left behind and left out by those who do. Globalization is the next stage in human history and the United States should and will lead the way. We are, truly, a trans-national "nation" - we are the future.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Free trade supporters including Obama have zero credibility on the issue of trade. World trade is essential. One-way trade deals written by corporate lobbyists are not. The latter has decimated this country's manufacturing base and lowered our standard of living. There is no hiding from that.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Although there are a few surprises on the list. Collin Peterson not voting with the Republicans is maybe the main one.
I see my own "beloved" Ron Kind didn't make the list.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)What the hell is the problem?
In the year and a half since that letter was written, Congress has not had the opportunity to discuss this issue with the President? REALLY?
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)when the crooks have the numbers.
This garbage should go through the formal treaty process considering the scope, I believe fast track is is nothing but an invention to end around constitutional muster so the people who profit from them can slide them through with minimal fuss and make it neigh on unto impossible for the people getting screwed to stop the efforts.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... without the fast track. It's an end run around around a disfunctional and archaic process that never worked very well from the get-go. Sort of like declarations of war vs. the general war authorization bill and the usefulness of a standing army vs state militias.
That's why it was put in place. And that's why it's going to be around long -term.
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... is perfectly constitutional and can be tailored and updated as is necessary to the times and for the circumstances. What good would a constitutional amendment do?
My impression of those who advocate constitutional amendments every time some policy choice they oppose is on the table is that they are simply obstructionists who are attempting to get their way without having to argue the merits.
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... in any reasonablee sense of the word. It was specified speculatively and a priori back in 1787. They didn't exactly get it right at the time and, considering that was the 18th century and we are now in the 2st, it certainly is no better now.
We aren't going to ammend the Constitution. We are, however, going to continue to negotiate and enter into broad trade agreements. You might as well get used to it. It's not only the future of America, it's the future of humanity.
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts).... what the fast track legislation does. It changes it. It's a law passed by the legislature that defines the parameters and process for ratification of a treaty. The constitution gives the legislature the power to define its rules and procedures (look it up) so this is perfectly constitutional.
If you don't like it, too bad. The world isn't going to stop moving forward simply because you have a gripe.
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... with the Iranian nuclear negotiations. We don't hear a lot of constitutional blah blah blah about it though, because DUers generally support it, while it's the Republicans who are being the obstructionists.
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)My impression of those who advocate constitutional amendments every time some policy choice they oppose is on the table is that they are simply obstructionists who are attempting to get their way without having to argue the merits.
Fast Track Authority prevents Congress from arguing the merits of a trade deal and offering amendments to change policies they don't agree with. Who are the real obstructionists here?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)...would rather blah blah blah about the Constitution rather than argue the merits. The merits will be argued and the deal will be subject to an up or down vote, rather than be fillbustered in typical obstructionist fashon. Constitutional blather is a way of avoiding discussion of the merits. A process that enables meaningful negotiations and then subjects the results to majority vote is reasonable and practical.
A limitation on amendments is necessary to negotiating a complex, wide ranging trade deal. The president can't negotiate in good faith if he can't make reasonable trade offs and promises that will hold up. If the deal is amended, then it's off, as far as the other countries are concerned. The president can't negotiate it over and over again each time congress decides to cherry pick provisions. That is unreasonable and too much to expect of others. We would never be taken seriously by the rest of the world, and we would lose or ability to lead and influence other nations and peoples. We would also losing the material advantages that global trade brings to us.
Those off us, like Obama and Clinton, who are progressive and want America to maintain and advance our standing in the world, to move the world forward and to advance the cause of liberal democracy, aren't going to roll over and play dead.
Response to think (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)The Obama Cult of Personality is hella strong, I guess...
pampango
(24,692 posts)Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.
On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent strongly opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as liberal strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.
http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Who thinks polling the American public on TPP means anything?
This is the general American public, remember.
pampango
(24,692 posts)that the general American public does not understand the issue as well as I do. Politicians should ignore the public and listen to me and the smaller fraction of the population who is well-informed on that issue.
When I agree with poll results it means that the general American public is wise and informed and politicians should listen to the American public and me. The common thread is: politicians should listen to me. I agree with you on that.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)That means it's good, right? Right?