Thread: Judge Shields TPP From FOIA. TPP likely to be announced VERY SOON

Judge Shields TPP From Freedom Of Information Act Educate! Secrecy, TPP, Trade, Transparency By Adam Klasfeld, www.courthousenews.com October 1st, 2015 Print Friendly Note: The court rejected the FOIA request for the TPP claiming a national security exemption in the statute. The US has a tendency to over-classify and when trade agreements are classified documents it makes it almost impossible to get them under FOIA. MANHATTAN (CN) – Drafts of the “vast, sweeping” trade agreement that the United States is secretly negotiating with 11 other world powers are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, a federal judge ruled. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a proposed trade agreement between 12 countries bordering the Pacific Rim setting international standards over labor, the environment, agriculture, medicine, labor, the Internet, human rights, intellectual property rights and many other issues. Though first announced to Congress in 2009, a confidentiality agreement that the participating countries reached protects their proposals from public disclosure until there is a final agreement. Most information about the deal has come to light through leaks to the press. WikiLeaks, which has already disclosed multiple chapters, offered a $100,000 bounty this past summer for the full text of the draft chapters. Intellectual Property Watch, a nonprofit news outlet better known as IP Watch, and its editor-in-chief William New took a more traditional path to wresting out the information. In 2012, the group sent the U.S. Trade Representative a wide-ranging FOIA request that sought draft chapters of the U.S. positions, plus the trade representative’s communications with the so-called Industry Trade Advisory Committees. President Barack Obama appointed these ITACs to consul on U.S. interests. The Washington-based advocacy group Public Citizen estimates that more than 500 corporate “trade advisors” have special access to such information in this role> Though the U.S. Trade Representative refused to release the drafts under an exemption protecting national-security information, the agency did disclose roughly 400 pages of the emails of discussions with the ITACs.IP Watch then sued the agency in Manhattan to acquire the withheld documents. Earlier this year, the website’s attorney Jonathan Manes noted in a brief that the disclosure of the records would not violate the confidentiality agreement because the website sought only the positions of the United States, not those of other countries. Manes, who works with Yale University’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, added that the trade representative never “described actual harm” from the disclosure. Barbara Weisel, an assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Southeast Asia and the Pacific, told the court that the documents contain “summaries about the work and progress” in TPP negotiations and “candid assessments” about reaching consensus with other countries. U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos nevertheless called the threat of harm “at the very least, plausible,” at least with regards to “foreign relations.” “As plaintiffs fail to recognize, disclosure may very well reduce the U.S.’s flexibility and complicate information exchanges and bargaining with other countries not involved in TPP negotiations, regardless of the fact that the other 11 countries participating in the TPP are already privy to U.S. positions and proposals,” the 35-page opinion released Friday states. Since corporate advisers are consultants, not federal agencies, however, the judge question the U.S. Trade Representative’s use of an exemption concerning interagency communications to withhold some of its emails with the ITACs. The parties will continue to spar over whether other emails are protected under exemptions protecting trade secrets or nondisclosure provisions of other statutes. In pushing this part of the litigation forward, Ramos ripped the U.S. Trade Representative for making “conclusory” declarations in support of withholding information that “cast doubt on the care and thoughtfulness with which the redactions were made.” The U.S. Trade Representative’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a phone interview, IP Watch’s attorney Manes said that “upshot” of the judge’s national-security finding is that “these kind of trade negotiations will continue to be negotiated in secret” until a final deal has been reached. Since Congress can decide only whether to approve – but not amend – an agreement, this arrangement leaves the public with “no meaningful input in these lawmaking processes,” Manes lamented. As the TPP negotiators kicked off another round of talks this week in Atlanta, Ga., multiple news outlets are speculating that a deal may be imminent. Politico quoted U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman dispelling the rumors of a rush toward an agreement, but Canada’s Macleans magazine reported that its country’s conservative government is pushing for consensus before the weekend in a “final sprint toward election day.” The TPP is also shaping up to be an electoral issue in the United States, with presidential candidates from both parties expressing skepticism of the opaque treaty with potentially massive implications on a variety of issues in their platforms. Manes believes that the information his clients may still receive can inform the public debate by illuminating who advocated for what positions, and whose interest the deal serves. “We hope that those disclosures can happen before the agreement’s finalized, but even afterward, I think there’s historical interest and lessons to be learned for future negotiations,” he said

https://www.popularresistance.org/ju...formation-act/








TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP
Historic trade deal likely to be announced this evening

ALEXANDER PANETTA
ATLANTA — The Canadian Press
Published Sunday, Oct. 04, 2015 10:59AM EDT
Last updated Sunday, Oct. 04, 2015 8:09PM EDT

• Comments
• AA

A last-minute sprint toward a historic trade agreement has turned into yet another marathon negotiating session, as a few lingering issues including Canadian dairy have repeatedly delayed a deal announcement Sunday.
As a result a planned news conference to announce the deal was rescheduled from 4 p.m., to 6 p.m., then 8 p.m., and is now pushed to a time to be determined, in a fitting finale to a ministerial meeting marked by all-night negotiations that was supposed to last two days, then three, then four and is now in its fifth and probably final day.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE

TPP negotiations enter ‘take it or leave it’ phase

ADOMAIT, MINTZ and RAGAN

Three economists grade the leaders’ performances on TPP, trade talks

John Weekes

There’s no turning back for Canada in TPP talks

It should become clear within hours whether these talks conclude under Canada’s current government, during the election campaign, or under the post-election government led by the Conservative party or one of its rivals. Whatever happens, the deal must still be approved by the next Parliament.
Stephen Harper had planned for a quiet day off the election trail but he ended up consumed by trade talks, with the prime minister getting briefing in Ottawa from the negotiating team in Atlanta.
The dynamics delaying the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal were explained by one of the trade ministers involved the 12-country talks. He said a struggle over next-generation pharmaceuticals has had a cascading effect on attempts to resolve other issues.
“Look, it’s not done yet,” said Australia’s Andrew Robb.
He explained that the U.S. and Australia had worked all night to resolve their differences on cutting-edge, cell-based medicines and made a breakthrough around 3 a.m.
He said they’d succeeded at establishing a model that bridges the gap between two entrenched positions: the more business-friendly, eight-year patent-style protections the U.S. wants for biologics, and the more patient-and-taxpayer-friendly five-year model preferred by Australia and others.
But that caused an uneven ripple effect. Some other countries weren’t pleased with the compromise, and now that discussion has become more multi-sided with two or three holdouts remaining, he said.
Canada is not too involved in that skirmish. But the delay, according to Robb, wound up pushing other issues to the backburner until Sunday morning and they’re still being worked out.
Insiders say access to Canadian grocery shelves is chief among them. Negotiators have been haggling about how much foreign butter, condensed milk and other dairy products should be allowed into Canada.
New Zealand helped create the TPP project a decade ago and it wants to sell more butter in North America – especially in the United States. It says the U.S., however, won’t open its own agriculture sector until getting some assurance that American producers could sell more in Canada and Mexico.
Currently, 90 per cent of the Canadian dairy market is closed to foreign products. The system allows for stable incomes in farming communities, but it limits options and drives up prices at the grocery store.
Representatives of the dairy lobby milled about the convention site late Sunday, professing to be still in the dark about what market-access offer Canada had made.
That last-minute suspense has cast a shadow of uncertainty over what appeared to be a done deal a few hours ago. Twelve countries including Canada appear on the verge of creating the world’s largest regional trade zone, which would usher in a series of economic changes on four continents and prompt months of heated debate starting with Canada’s election.
After five days of around-the-clock negotiations, an announcement appeared within reach Sunday on a pact that would cover 40 per cent of the world’s economy.
Some national delegations had already begun briefing other industry stakeholders on the contents, and there were plans for a press conference as well as briefings for Canadian media in Atlanta and Ottawa.
The agreement would reduce or eliminate barriers in a wide range of sectors and could lead to more Canadian exports of pork, beef, canola, high-tech machinery and a variety of other products.
It would also entrench new international trade standards in Asia, setting a template should any other countries in that fast-growing region – like China – want to join.
Other parts could be controversial in Canada. It’s expected to increase imports of foreign car parts and possibly dairy, which could mean lower prices and greater selection for consumers but also hurt some workers in both sectors.
Cue the political debates.
The NDP’s opposition to the TPP process is an early example of the political challenges it could face in several countries as it is voted on by their parliaments.
The biggest potential test would come in a few months, as U.S. Congress votes on the deal and conflicting pressures from the political left and right threaten to make that vote a nail biter.
It’s unclear when the public might see the fine print – and whether it would be available before Canadians head to the polls Oct. 19. One of the outstanding sources of uncertainty is when a legal review might be completed of the actual text of the deal.
More details on that front, and on the agreement itself, would become clearer should this oft-delayed news conference ever actually occur.
An agreement would complete a decade-long process that began with four countries in Asia, and spread to the United States, then Latin America and Canada.
The state of play was summarized by New Zealand’s trade minister – who easily provided the most-memorable quote of the five-day meetings.
Under pressure to obtain foreign access for his own country’s dairy, he told one of his country’s newspapers that difficult compromises will have to be made.
He illustrated it with an unappetizing culinary metaphor.
“It’s got the smell of a situation we occasionally see which is that on the hardest core issues, there are some ugly compromises out there,” Tim Groser told New Zealand’s Weekend Herald.
“And when we say ugly, we mean ugly from each perspective – it doesn’t mean ‘I’ve got to swallow a dead rat and you’re swallowing foie gras.’ It means both of us are swallowing dead rats on three or four issues to get this deal across the line.”

What would be he national security interest of this trade agreement versus any other trade agreement? And why would a trade agreement contain provisions that impact our national security?! Are we agreeing to purchase non-US items from unsavory sources for our Military? Are we selling our military technologies to unsavory buyers? Are immigration issues so repugnant that our knowing what our government is up to would start riots and protests in the United States?

Someone needs to dig into this and dig fast .....

Maybe Intellectual Property Watch should appeal the Judge's decision and try a higher court?

AMNESTY!





Revealed: The Secret Immigration Chapter in Obama’s Trade Agreement

PEDRO SANTANA/AFP/Getty Images

by Alex Swoyer10 Jun 2015Washington, DC
Discovered inside the huge tranche of secretive Obamatrade documents released by Wikileaks are key details on how technically any Republican voting for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that would fast-track trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal would technically also be voting to massively expand President Obama’s executive authority when it comes to immigration matters.

The mainstream media covered the Wikileaks document dump extensively, but did not mention the immigration chapter contained within it, so Breitbart News took the documents to immigration experts to get their take on it. Nobody has figured how big a deal the documents uncovered by Wikileaks are until now. (See below)
The president’s Trade in Services Act (TiSA) documents, which is one of the three different close-to-completely-negotiated deals that would be fast-tracked making up the president’s trade agreement, show Obamatrade in fact unilaterally alters current U.S. immigration law. TiSA, like TPP or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) deals, are international trade agreements that President Obama is trying to force through to final approval. The way he can do so is by getting Congress to give him fast-track authority through TPA.
TiSA is even more secretive than TPP. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill can review the text of TPP in a secret, secured room inside the Capitol—and in some cases can bring staffers who have high enough security clearances—but with TiSA, no such draft text is available.
Voting for TPA, of course, would essentially ensure the final passage of each TPP, T-TIP, and TiSA by Congress, since in the history of fast-track any deal that’s ever started on fast-track has been approved.
Roughly 10 pages of this TiSA agreement document leak are specifically about immigration.
“The existence of these ten pages on immigration in the Trade and Services Agreement make it absolutely clear in my mind that the administration is negotiating immigration – and for them to say they are not – they have a lot of explaining to do based on the actual text in this agreement,” Rosemary Jenks, the Director of Government Relations at Numbers USA, told Breitbart News following her review of these documents.
Obama will be able to finalize all three of the Obamatrade deals, without any Congressional input, if Congress grants him fast-track authority by passing TPA. Fast-track lowers the vote thresholds in the Senate and blocks Congress from amending any trade deals—and also, since each of these three deals are pretty much entirely negotiated already, it wouldn’t lead to any more congressional involvement or transparency with each.
The Senate passed the TPA last month, so it is up to the House to put the brakes on Obama’s unilateral power. The House could vote as early as Friday on fast-track, but may head into next week. By all counts, it’s going to be a very tight vote—and may not pass. It remains to be seen what will happen in light of leaks about things like the immigration provisions of TiSA—which deals with 24 separate parties, mostly different nations but also the European Union. It is focused on increasing the free flow of services worldwide—and with that, comes labor. Labor means immigration and guestworkers.
“This Trade and Services Agreement is specifically mentioned in TPA as being covered by fast-track authority, so why would Congress be passing a Trade Promotion Authority Act that covers this agreement, if the U.S. weren’t intended to be a party to this agreement – so at the very least, there should be specific places where the U.S. exempts itself from these provisions and there are not,” explained Jenks.
She emphasized that this is a draft, but at this point “certainly the implication is that the U.S. intends to be a party to all or some of the provisions of this agreement. There is nothing in there that says otherwise, and there is no question in my mind that some of the provisions in this Trade and Services Agreement would require the United States to change its immigration laws.”
In 2003, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution that said no immigration provision should be in trade agreements – and in fact, former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) voted for this resolution.
The existence of these 10 pages is in clear violation of that earlier unanimous decision, and also in violation of the statements made by the U.S. Trade Representative.
“He has told members of Congress very specifically the U.S. is not negotiating immigration – or at least is not negotiating any immigration provisions that would require us to change our laws. So, unless major changes are made to the Trade and Services Agreement – that is not true,” said Jenks.
There are three examples within the 10 pages of areas where the U.S. would have to alter current immigration law.
First, on page 4 and 5 of the agreement, roughly 40 industries are listed where potentially the U.S. visa processes would have to change to accommodate the requirements within the agreement.
Jenks explained that under the agreement, the terms don’t have an economic needs based test, which currently U.S. law requires for some types of visa applications in order to show there aren’t American workers available to fill positions.
Secondly, on page 7 of the agreement, it suggests, “The period of processing applications may not exceed 30 days.”
Jenks said this is a massive problem for the U.S. because so many visa applications take longer than 30 days.
“We will not be able to meet those requirements without essentially our government becoming a rubber stamp because it very often takes more than 30 days to process a temporary worker visa,” she said.
Jenks also spotted another issue with the application process.
“The fact that there’s a footnote in this agreement that says that face to face interviews are too burdensome … we’re supposed to be doing face to face interviews with applicants for temporary visas,” she added.
“According to the State Department Consular Officer, it’s the in person interviews that really gives the Consular Officer an opportunity to determine – is this person is a criminal, is this person a terrorist … all of those things are more easily determined when you’re sitting face to face with someone and asking those questions.”
The third issue is present on page 4 of the agreement. It only provides an “[X]” where the number of years would be filled in for the entry or temporary stay.
Jenks explained that for example, with L visas under current U.S. immigration law, the time limit is seven years – so if the agreement were to go beyond seven years, it would change current U.S. law.
This wouldn’t be unconstitutional if Obama has fast-track authority under TPA, as Congress would essentially have given him the power to finalize all aspects of the negotiations, including altering immigration law.
“I think this whole thing makes it very clear that this administration is negotiating immigration – intends to make immigration changes if they can get away with it, and I think it’s that much more critical that Congress ensure that the administration does not have the authority to negotiate immigration,” Jenks said.
Breitbart News’ Matthew Boyle contributed to this report.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/10/revealed-the-secret-immigration-chapter-in-obamas-trade-agreement/

Two Party System A Marxist Mirage – TPP, Amnesty Charades Prove Americans Have No Representation

Posted on May 24, 2015 by Rick Wells in Uncategorized // 0 Comments

What if the communists were further along in their admitted objective of capturing America from within than was widely suspected or being reported? Isn’t that exactly how it’s believed and feared it will happen, that we’ll just suddenly wake up one day and the communists will officially be in charge? Surely nobody expects them to be sending out monthly progress reports through George Stephanopoulos. They would want to avoid creating too much public awareness until it’s too late for us to stop them, an easy task with this American public.
In W. Cleon Skousen’s book The Naked Communist, he listed 45 “goals of the communist takeover of America,” which were read into the Congressional Record in 1963. Number fifteen was “Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.”
The Democrat Party has obviously already been transformed into a Marxist front organization, identifying themselves as “progressives,” which is merely a sanitized synonym for “socialist.” An expert on the subject, Vladimir Lenin said, “The goal of socialism is communism.”
Republicans are now demonstrating through their actions that a majority of them too serve a communist master and are little more than purchased tools of treachery. Many Americans have been suspicious for a while, but their actions over the last six months in particular, utilizing tactics of feigned opposition and desperately seeking a means of capitulation, have removed any reasonable doubt, the criminal standard for conviction.
In last the six months, under comrades Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, it has become apparent that the communists, Marxists, or fascists, whatever label one might choose to place upon world government-seeking totalitarian oligarchs, control the Republican Party as well. McConnell and company are not merely caving on amnesty, the CRomnibus and TPP, they are completing their mission.
The TPP has been in negotiation and crafting for ten years, through Republican and Democrat administrations and legislature leaderships. The elitists who are behind it were confident that they would have the votes when they were needed. They know that key individuals occupy a sufficient numbers of seats and leadership positions are held by their operatives. Whether it be in Kentucky, Ohio, Utah, Texas or any of the host of states represented by traitors to their nation and fellow citizens, they have the numbers and control to get what they want.
The seats have been purchased, the figurehead occupants are in place, and the orders have been given. Vote for TPP. It’s a situation not unlike the Patriot Act which was prepared years in advance for just the right moment, fabricated or opportune, for it to be rolled out. In that instance the deed was committed by a Republican president, assisted by legislative representatives voting based upon talking points rather than the actual text. Party is of little significance to the traitors, they all work for the same people and have the common enemy of the American people.
Another result of that abuse of process by the establishment “Republican” operative George W Bush was the consolidation of power under the guise of a need to defend the homeland, the Department of Homeland Security. Under even the most honorable leadership this centralized control of power and lethal force would be a threat. We have the antipathy of an honorable, pro-American regime in power now.
One might expect the three Senators who are running for president to have spoken out against the TPP and the fact that it abdicates Congressional powers in the furtherance of a dictatorial executive, particularly one of the “opposition party,” who has demonstrated his penchant for usurpation and tyrannical overreach. Senators Rubio, Cruz and Paul have all been fairly silent on the issue. Perhaps it is not a good idea to bite any political hands at this point in a campaign, whether they are the source of your meals or not. The only Senators who have expressed themselves are the trio of traitors, McConnell, Cornyn and Hatch behind this gutting of the Constitution. All three of these despicable subhumans are gushing over the new found love, Hussein Obama.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is one we might also expect to be vocal, given his proclaimed respect for and knowledge of the Constitution and his reputation as a “maverick” in his previous, less establishment- affiliated life under Democrat Senate leadership.
Since accepting a key role at the knee of the communist traitor Mitch McConnell, Senator Lee was able to stave off a potential primary challenge financed by Utah billionaire Jon Huntsman’s political machinery. He’s much more content now to advise McConnell, appear on radio and television shows as the voice of “moderate patriotism” and sell books. He also no longer bites any hands.
The America people have been left with no representation. We have one party completely owned by the Marxists and another that is sufficiently diluted, infiltrated and purchased to give them control. It is actually the communist subversives who have the appearance of a two party system in America, a false front that they manipulate extremely well.
The American people have been reduced to mere spectators and peasant subjects. We will remain as such until we are either herded into cages, directly attacked or choose proactively to retake control of our government. It is unlikely that the American people will active preemptively, a fact the Marxists are well aware of and one which gives the advantages of time and surprise to those who have stolen our nation.
The questions remaining to be answered are those along the lines of how much abuse will the government administer and the submissive people accept, what will be their methods, and when and where will the triggering events take place.
TPP has many of the earmarks of the totalitarian triggering system through which despotic control is being installed and our Constitution usurped. Patriots who are watching these events unfold understand what is happening. We recognize that the people have lost control of this government and every action taken is directed against us. We are its targets.
Treason is a capital offense. If this treaty contains the unconstitutional, anti-American elements that we fear it conceals, all who vote for it and all who vote for fast track authority should be charged with treason. That is the true nature of their crime.
There is no safety in plausible deniability, it does not exist. Our so-called representatives have more access to information than the average American does and we private citizens have no problem ascertaining that this deal is a threat to our existence. There is also no excuse for voting on a bill they haven’t read nor is there any for ceding their constitutional responsibility to the executive branch.
The problem is that Congress members aren’t going to indict themselves. We have no enforcement mechanism. The founders never imagined that we would have our entire legislature dominated by traitors as it is today.
That places the ball back into the court of the American people. And we have no leadership or organization through which to respond. This is a serious crisis, the epitome of a constitutional crisis. What are the people to do?
Rick Wells is a conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. Please “Like” him on Facebook, “Follow” him on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us & www.truthburgers.com






http://rickwells.us/two-party-system...epresentation/

HERE IS A PROGRESSIVE CORP. SAYING "NOTHING TO SEE HERE. TPP Amnesty is a Conspiracy Theory" SO IT IS A REAL CONCERN.

Fear of a Secret 'Amnesty' Bedevils Republicans on Trade

The “trojan horse” with no legs.
David Weigel daveweigel


April 22, 2015 — 7:50 PM EDT
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter






The U.S. Capitol Building stands in this photo taken with a tilt-shift lens in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Friday, Oct. 3, 2014.

Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Share on LinkedInShare on RedditShare on Google+E-mail






The debate over trade promotion authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership is largely taking place on the left-hand side of the political spectrum—more accurately, between the Democrats named "Barack Obama" and the Democrats named anything else. The Republican votes for the trade deal are supposed to be locked in. Indeed, the GOP's 2014 election victory was a key reason that the TPP and "fast track" authority moved to the head of the Capitol agenda. Republican votes would affirm them; a Democratic president would sign them.
Yet a small problem has emerged on the right. On April 13, the strategist Curtis Ellis published a column in The Hill arguing that the trade deal was a "trojan horse" for amnesty, because it included an "entire chapter on immigration" that made the acquisition of L-1 visas easier. It was easier still to imagine the president using this bill to grant legal status to millions of foreign workers. "The Trans-Pacific Partnership is another instance of Obama using every means he can to advance his immigration agenda, as he said he would," wrote Ellis.
This worry was not unique to Ellis; by April 16, the Ways and Means Committee felt it necessary to debunk the "backdoor amnesty" rumor. "Like past U.S. trade agreements," wrote the committee's analysts, "TPP will explicitly state that it will not require changes in any parties’ immigration laws or procedures. While other countries are negotiating temporary entry commitments in TPP, these will not include the United States."

“He could open up trade with countries that are sworn enemies of ours.”
Representative John Fleming
Yet the rumor persists. On Tuesday, in The Hill (again), Dick Morris largely re-wrote the Ellis column to argue that the TPP would usher in "mass immigration." And in conversations Tuesday, several Republican members of Congress said they had heard dark rumors about the deal.
"I'm concerned that we are again empowering a president who abuses power," said Louisiana Congressman John Fleming. "We're hearing something about some kind of an exchange, or utilizing foreign workers, and at a time when we have so many Americans not working I think that's a problem."
Asked where he'd heard the rumor, Fleming could not say. "I just came across some stuff; I'm not even sure where I read it," he said. "I want to get to the bottom of it. What often happens with these bills is that we get the hype, we get the marketing, but we don't get the details until the last minute." Echoing the language of the skeptics, he worried that the deal might be a "trojan horse."
Virginia Congressman Dave Brat, an economist who defeated former GOP majority leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 primary, said that he was a "free trade by disposition" but had concerns with the new bill.
"No one wants to live on Robinson Crusoe's island," said Brat. "But are there immigration provisions in there? I don't know. Some say yes; some say no. You can look at it, if you have time, amidst a million other issues."
Idaho Congressman Raul Labrador, a former immigration lawyer, said that he'd heard the same rumors and worried that he lacked the time to comb the bill's text. "I was just talking to my staff about that," he said. "I keep hearing about it, but I haven't found that in the bill yet."
Republican leaders, while annoyed, don't see an issue that could tank the bill. It's more a manifestation of the worries that the rank and file have about all bills that look rushed, and are not open to amendments. Progressives, who are far more united in killing the trade deal, are in the uncommon position of rooting for paranoia. And there is plenty to be had. Fleming, for example, speculated that the president might use trade authority to cut a deal with Iran.
"He could open up trade with countries that are sworn enemies of ours," said the congressman. "Before you know it, Iran could be one of our closest trading partners, and we'd be giving access to people who are sworn enemies of our destruction."



http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...icans-on-trade