Update: Here is a UTube of Clinton’s latest speech in Iowa today. She mentions TPP. See what you think she has done:

https://youtu.be/xeA6MZzGDM4

I’ll try to get the transcript of the speech when I can find it.

I would be really careful about any responses regarding the TPA, TPP, etc. Clinton is pro-trade. However, even presupposing Clinton was involved in negotiating the TPP under Obama, she most assuredly was out of those negotiations in the last two years. Based on what Congressman Peter DeFasio is saying in the UTubes below, its unlikely Clinton has seen the proposed trade documents, or if she has, she would not be able to say so.

https://youtu.be/zFK0RQ2KehY

https://youtu.be/TPp1XgyG7qg

The Congress critters have been under direction to review the trade documents in the basement of their building and are under orders not to take notes. This does not apply to the Corporations, who have been involved in the making of the proposed agreements and are apparently free to dispense the information among themselves. So, Bernie Sanders, who is in Congress, and has probably seen the documents, should (does) understand. That he has berated Clinton over her refusal so far to comment decisively makes it look like he is baiting his hook with red herring. What self respecting detail oriented wonk would comment over something to which she hasn’t official access?

The proposed is reportedly is a living agreement…it has no sunset clause. The proposed apparently could be applied to future countries. There would be no need to negotiate new agreements. As far as I could tell on 150613, The TPP/TPA had not been uploaded to the “Federal Daily Register”. Though we citizens are currently unable to review the bills, there is a summary report, published by the Congressional Research Center, entitled: “The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Negotiations and Issues for Congress”(R42694).

According to this report, the proposed trade agreement, among other things, utilizes risk management tools as part of inspections of goods, services and agriculture to our shores. It’s opaque on how or if that dovetails with USDA and FDA inspections. Congressman DeFazio’s example of previous trade agreements, of how the dolphin free warnings were removed from Mexican produced tuna cans gives a clue.

His other example, American subsidized cotton and Brazilian imports, is also instructive. Maybe you don’t like subsidies or think cotton is past its subsidy prime, or that it should be grown outside the US. However, subsidies are a legal tool, and are available for use to the Government. Few would argue now that they were not useful during the Depression. That we must pay Brazil under our current trade agreements oodles of money because they arbitrated concessions over our subsidized cotton makes it appear that we are paying twice. Isn’t this a form of legalized Brazilian payola? The whole reason for a cotton subsidy is to give an advantage to a disadvantaged grower. Every subsidy, now, can be scrutinized in light of this ruling and outside Congress.

We need trade agreements; they are a major way to have regional political influence, to make our way in the world. Advocates of the bill say that it is based on our South Korean agreement, and therefore is not unusual. However, it seems to me that if the real cost of doing business requires bribes/payola, we ought to at least be able to transparently acknowledge that and have it as part of the discussion. It’s really pretty outrageous that the big companies of the world have been involved in the design of this proposed trade agreement, and therefore know exactly how they will benefit, while we blinkered citizens can anticipate using government funds to grease corporate wheels, where bumps in the trade road are encountered.

Living in California, and therefore a part of the populations of the Pacific Rim, I am keenly aware how we have benefited or not, of years of pacific trade. What is to happen with this Federal proposal to our drought stricken farmers and their future? Maybe California’s future is not to be the breadbasket of the US. Fracking, after all, reportedly takes less water. However, it seems to me that it would be a lot easier to envision the future and plan for it if a big part of it weren’t hiding in the Congressional basement.

The trade deal, explained for people who fall asleep hearing about trade deals – The Washington Post

International Trade Agreements | Green Party of California (GPCA)

Garamendi Expresses Strong Opposition to Fast-Track Trade Bill and the Trans-Pacific Partnership “Free Trade Agreement” | Congressman John Garamendi

Nader: 10 Reasons the TPP is not a “Progressive Trade Agreement