Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JHan

(10,173 posts)
14. It wasn't all held in secret.
Sun Jan 8, 2017, 04:46 PM
Jan 2017

There have been meetings with consumer groups, trade associations, labor unions.Here is the full list: https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/blog/2014/February/a-note-on-stakeholder-consultation

Note that negotiations started in 2009

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

Congress established a system of Advisory Committees to get input from affected industries. The Obama Administration has grown the size and membership of our trade advisory committees to add voices that were initially left out of the process. In doing so we have worked to ensure strong representation from:

Labor unions,
Environmental groups,
Faith organizations,
Public health and consumer advocates,
Consumer organizations,
Local and state officials,
Farmers, ranchers, small business, and many more diverse interests.
These advisors receive full and equal access to U.S. negotiating proposals and work with our negotiators in an interactive process that includes regular updates on the negotiations, the opportunity to review U.S. proposals before they are tabled, and the chance to provide meaningful input into negotiating proposals and decisions. Over the past year, USTR has been soliciting additional nominations for candidates to further represent labor and non-industry interests, as well as further representatives of agriculture, services, and other sectors of the economy. We welcome additional participants and are open to new ideas on how we can expand input.

We are always looking for new ways to engage the public and to seek views that will help inform and guide our trade policy, and enhancing transparency will remain a priority, consistent with the ability to deliver on our ultimate mission, which is to deliver agreements that achieve the maximum possible benefit for the American people. That’s our focus.


"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 TPP 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.
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."


Before it reaches congress, within 105 days of signing an FTA, the U.S International Trade Commission will issue a report on the economic impact of the deal. Once Congress receives the bills, they have five months for review and hold votes - their deliberations will be public.

Furthermore, the President has to make the entire trade agreement public, this is a required stipulation of the TPA :https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf

Also, it's pretty standard for the public to not have full access to an FTA prior to signing. These are rules dictated by Congress, not the President.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It didn't register high w voters in the polls I saw, so nope. bettyellen Jan 2017 #1
And major proponents of the TPP outperformed Trump in their respective states... Garrett78 Jan 2017 #33
Russia harmed the election. Period. Nuff said. shraby Jan 2017 #2
Sure didn't help. Schema Thing Jan 2017 #3
I'm betting down-the-road we'll appreciate Obama's support for trade. Canada's Trudea likes TPP. Hoyt Jan 2017 #4
Agreed. I think we'll learn to appreciate a lot about his vision in the next couple years. JHan Jan 2017 #8
I think it was Hillary's past support for TPP that harmed Hillary NobodyHere Jan 2017 #5
She called it the gold standard while she was Secretary of State... JHan Jan 2017 #6
They may be true NobodyHere Jan 2017 #7
Well to be fair, some provisions changed. JHan Jan 2017 #9
What provisions in TPP changed? NobodyHere Jan 2017 #10
I'm not sure, tbh I'm just guessing. JHan Jan 2017 #11
I don't see any indications of important changes in the TPP. At the same time, Akamai Jan 2017 #12
Actually, if you look there were unions, environmentalists, universities, economists, and many more Hoyt Jan 2017 #13
It wasn't all held in secret. JHan Jan 2017 #14
Don't you remember the secrecy of the TPP? with Senators, Congress Persons Akamai Jan 2017 #16
Regarding fast track: JHan Jan 2017 #19
Every major trade agreement since Nixon was negotiated in secrecy, was opposed Akamai Jan 2017 #22
Our representatitives do know: JHan Jan 2017 #23
Senators Brown, Merkley, Warren and Sanders Akamai Jan 2017 #24
And some economists do support it. JHan Jan 2017 #25
no. her suppoet for blm undocumented immigrants and refugees hurt her JI7 Jan 2017 #15
HRC and Obama should have been strong on how they felt about the TPP Rex Jan 2017 #17
Obama was very, very clear all along -- he was hugely for it although when Akamai Jan 2017 #18
The polling and interview I've seen mcar Jan 2017 #20
Look at the dislike of TPP with Trump supporters... Akamai Jan 2017 #21
thats nice, but they still voted for Kasich , johnson over feingold and portman over strickland JI7 Jan 2017 #26
Things are cumulative -- maybe they would have been more likely to vote for Hillary (I think so) if Akamai Jan 2017 #27
Hillary did better than dems who were anti trade and worst than dems who were pro trade JI7 Jan 2017 #28
I thought Hillary was a perfectly fine candidate but I Akamai Jan 2017 #32
I sent Feingold a fair amount of money but Johnson got more and more and more... snowy owl Jan 2017 #29
Wisconsin continually has elected Scott Walker for Governor JI7 Jan 2017 #30
Their hatred of Obama encompasses everything he did or supported ... bettyellen Jan 2017 #37
Now it's Obama's fault. Is there anyone else we need to blame before we get to HIllary? Exilednight Jan 2017 #31
No one's fault but seems okay to try to understand Akamai Jan 2017 #35
It helped cost her the election no doubt taught_me_patience Jan 2017 #34
I guess you are right that coastal dems were not as anti-TPP Akamai Jan 2017 #36
Right, Comey... voter suppression and Russia had NOTHING to do with why she lost :rolleyes: uponit7771 Jan 2017 #38
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Did Obama's strong suppor...»Reply #14