On a night that began with vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine being nominated by acclamation, Democrats – and one high-profile Independent – squared off against Trump and built a solid affirmative case for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Aiming squarely at the image that Trump projected in his convention last week, Obama offered a scathing dissection.

“The reason he’ll lose it is because he’s selling the American people short,” he said. “We are not a fragile people, we’re not a frightful people. Our power doesn’t come from some self-declared savior promising that he alone can restore order as long as we do things his way. We don’t look to be ruled.”

Obama spent a major part of his speech sharing his first-hand experience of Clinton’s strengths.

“For four years,” Obama said,  “I had a front-row seat to her intelligence, her judgment and her discipline. I came to realize that her unbelievable work ethic wasn’t for praise, it wasn’t for attention, that she was in this for everyone who needs a champion.”

In a moment that was both self-effacing and a play to his popularity with the Democratic base, Obama offered himself as a point of comparison. “I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill, nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”

When his speech wrapped up, Hillary came out to join him on stage for a brief hug and wave. The Wells Fargo Arena, which was packed to the rafters, exploded in prolonged applause and cheers.

Members of the Rhode Island delegation were still smiling about it this morning. “It was a terrific night,” said Rhode Island Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed. “The speech that President Obama gave was phenomenal, and I can’t wait for this evening when we see the first woman officially accept the nomination to the Presidency of the United States.”

“It was exciting to meet vice-president (candidate) Kaine for the first time,” said RI Rep. Deb Ruggiero. “I love his social justice agenda. I think what President Obama did was galvanize everyone, whether you’re a Democrat or you’re an unaffiliated to realize that we need to elect Hillary Clinton as the next President. We cannot have someone like Donald Trump. As Mike Bloomberg said, ‘Hillary Clinton understands this is not reality television, this is reality.”

Kaine gave a solid, largely introductory speech that saw him slipping into a Donald Trump impersonation, asking the audience if they accepted all the promises the Republican made when he said, “Believe me.” “I’m going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Believe me.” “There’s nothing suspicious in my tax returns. Believe me.” “Does anybody here believe him?” The attendees in the Wells Fargo Center thundered, “No!”

A high point of the evening, for many, was Vice President Joe Biden’s speech. In a fiery address that played to his middle-class sensibilities, Biden offered a blunt critique of Trump’s so-called populism.

Said Biden, “His cynicism and undoubtedly his lack of empathy and compassion can be summed up in that phrase he is most proud of making famous: “You’re fired.” I’m not joking. Think about that. Think about that. Think about everything you learned as a child. No matter where you were raised, how can there be pleasure in saying, “You’re fired.” He is trying to tell us he cares about the middle class. Give me a break. That is a bunch of malarkey.”

There were more pointed critiques. Former candidate Martin O’Malley chided the Republicans: “Anger never fed a hungry child.” Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson got in the first dig over Trump’s call for Russian hackers to try to uncover additional Clinton e-mails. “That’s not law and order, that’s criminal intent.”

Independent Mike Bloomberg, who made it clear that he was not there to endorse the Democratic platform, nonetheless endorsed Hillary and, in no uncertain terms, drew a sharp distinction between his own status and that of the Republican nominee. “I’ve built a business and I didn’t start it with a million-dollar check from my father.”

Congressman David Cicilline asked President Obama to not share with Donald Trump the national security secrets typically confided in candidates for president. Earlier today, Trump publicly prodded Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s email.

He sent this letter to the president today.

President Obama,

Since 1952, the White House has authorized the U.S. intelligence community to provide major party presidential nominees with classified briefings on the state of international affairs.  These briefings feature the discussion of sensitive intelligence, and are designed to help prepare candidates for the solemn national security responsibilities that they will assume upon taking office.

As the Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump will presumably be eligible for this courtesy in the near future.  However, on July 27, 2016, Mr. Trump urged Russian intelligence services to conduct cyberespionage operations into the correspondence of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope that you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.  I think you will probably be rewarded mightily be our press.”  In light of these recent statements, we respectfully ask you to rescind Mr. Trump’s access to these briefings.

It is our belief that these statements, when considered in the broader context of the Republican nominee’s prior conduct and ties to the Russian government, warrant a re-examination of his access to this sensitive intelligence.  These remarks reflect more than just a lack of good judgment—it is an explicit call for intervention from an adversarial foreign power to undermine the American democratic process, and represents an action just short of outright treason.

Unfortunately, this intervention would be only the latest chapter in Russian efforts to interfere in this presidential election.  In May, National Intelligence Director James Clapper announced that the intelligence community had seen some indications that foreign governments were attempting to hack U.S. presidential campaigns.  And in June, CrowdStrike identified Russian intelligence agencies as the source behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee—an assessment that has been largely corroborated by the U.S. intelligence community.

The Republican nominee’s call for hostile foreign action represents a step beyond mere partisan politics and represents a threat to the republic itself.  It suggests that he is unfit to receive sensitive intelligence, and may willingly compromise our national security if he is permitted to do so. With this in mind, we respectfully ask that you withhold the intelligence briefing to Mr. Trump in the interests of national security.

Sincerely,
David N. Cicilline
Member of Congress

After months of sustained pressure from global humanitarian groups – as well as peace activists in Rhode Island – the United States seems poised to stop selling cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia, according to an exclusive report in Foreign Policy.

“Frustrated by a growing death toll, the White House has quietly placed a hold on the transfer of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia as the Sunni ally continues its bloody war on Shiite rebels in Yemen,” the American news magazine focused on global events and foreign policy reported Friday night. “It’s the first concrete step the United States has taken to demonstrate its unease with the Saudi bombing campaign that human rights activists say has killed and injured hundreds of Yemeni civilians, many of them children.”

Textron, a global defense and aviation conglomerate headquartered in downtown Providence, makes the cluster bombs the US  provides to Saudi Arabia through a Massachusetts subsidiary called Textron Systems. The last known contract with Saudi Arabia for Textron cluster bombs was signed in 2013, according to Mark Hiznay, a senior arms researcher for Human Rights Watch. The agreement says 1,300 cluster bombs were to be delivered to Saudi Arabia by December 31, 2015.

It’s unclear if that contract has been filled, in part, because Textron doesn’t comment publicly on international defense orders. Hiznay told RI Future he didn’t know the status of the order. Textron declined to comment publicly for this story. “It’s an important program for us,” company spokesman David Sylvestre told RI Future in February.

Cluster bombs are one of the world’s most controversial weapons of war. Because they disperse “bomblets” that don’t always detonate on cue, they cause civilian casualties sometimes years after a conflict ends. Cluster bombs are banned by 119 nations and the United Nations, but not by the United States or Saudi Arabia. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both documented civilian casualties in Yemen after Saudi-led airstrikes against the war-torn Middle Eastern country.

Human Rights Watch, according to the Foreign Policy report, “has investigated at least five attacks in Yemen involving CBU-105s in four governorates since the war began. In December, the group documented an attack on the Yemeni port of Hodaida that injured a woman and two children in their homes. Two other civilians were wounded in a CBU-105 attack near Al-Amar village, according to local residents and medical staff interviewed by Human Rights Watch.”

In Rhode Island, where Textron is headquartered, peace activists led by the FANG Collective and the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group, have targeted Textron with weekly actions in front of the global conglomerate’s downtown Providence headquarters at 40 Westminster St.

“Does anybody in this country go to work to kill a total stranger? This company does that, for money. Not because they have any greivance against anybody they are doing this for money,” said Pia Ward, an organizer with the FANG Collective at the most recent protest in front of Textron. “I am going to protest until they stop making cluster bombs. I’m going to be here every week until they stop making them.”

Peace activists and politicians celebrated the news.

“The Cluster Munition Coalition applauds the decision of the US government to block the transfer of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia,” said Megan Burke, the director of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines – Cluster Munitions (ICBL-CMC). “This decision follows numerous reports released by CMC members, such as Human Rights Watch, demonstrating the grave humanitarian impact of these weapons being used by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. We call on the US to take the next step to prohibit all future production, transfer and use of cluster munitions by joining the Convention on Cluster Munitions.”

Martha Yager,  of the AFSC-SENE, confirmed the weekly protests against Textron until the company stops making cluster bombs.

“I am impressed that the U.S. has interrupted the flow of these awful weapons to Saudi Arabia,” she said. “Maybe now that the U.S. government has indicated reluctance to use or have its allies use U.S. made cluster bombs, Textron will announce that it is no longer going to make them.  Until that happens, we will keep pushing on them to do the right thing.  We will be there again on Thursday from 11:30 – 12:30 to make that ask.”

Congressman Jim Langevin told RI Future, “We must always seek to minimize harm to civilians in any conflict, and I applaud the Administration for taking this step to prioritize humanitarian concerns.”

Thanks @hrw for its research on this, @amnesty @afscsene for advocacy, @bobplain @ArmsControlNow @vicenews @latimes @MotherJones 4 reporting

— No US Cluster Bombs (@noclusterbombs) May 27, 2016

Welcome nonetheless & thanks to many incl. @belkiswille @MarkHiznay @bobplain @piaEward @wjhenn @naiman @noclusterbombs @amnesty @afscsene

— Mary Wareham (@marywareham) May 27, 2016

There is a profound irony, no doubt influenced by President Barack Obama’s neoliberal pedigree, that comes with watching the nation’s first black president touch down in a country whose revolution was successful in part because its leaders abolished American-imposed Jim Crow racism laws overnight as part of their ascent to power. I am personally one who finds a huge level of solidarity with the Cuban revolution and look with great anxiety at what could take place in the coming years. And to encourage others to find similar solidarity, I would highly encourage they watch Steven Soderbergh’s epic two part Che film.

Released in 2008 just after capitalism had proven yet again it is a force of destruction, the pictures bombed at the box office for a few reasons. It was long, in Spanish, and there was just enough anti-Communism left in the wider American public, prior to the Occupy Wall Street movement, to hinder a potential audience. But after eight years of an abysmal neoliberal presidency that has been one disaster after another, along with the revelations from Assange, Snowden, and Manning that show the NSA behaves worse than the Stasi ever did, I think there is a fresh audience waiting to watch this picture.

Part 1, The Argentine, is a fantastic war movie that retells the story of Che Guevara’s leadership in the mountains of Cuba as they creep towards Havana, converting peasants and workers who live in poverty to their cause. As a frame narrative, Soderbergh shows in stark black and white Guevara’s visit to the United Nations several years later wherein he rebukes the NATO-aligned western imperialists to cheers from the delegates representing the Soviet Union and Africa. Watching the film gives one a tremendous amount of respect for the cause of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro, and Che. Watching Benicio Del Toro as Che lecture the UN about patria o muerte, one recalls the words of Frantz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth:

Castro attending the UN in military uniform does not scandalize the underdeveloped countries. What Castro is demonstrating is how aware he is of the continuing regime of violence. What is surprisings is that he did not enter the UN with his submachine gun; but perhaps they wouldn’t have allowed that.

Indeed.

Part 2, Guerilla, is about the ill-fated effort Che led in Bolivia trying to foment revolution. Due to a series of circumstances beyond his control, including sectarianism in the Latin American Communist movement caused by the Sino-Soviet split and a lack of tactical advantage that Che has responsibility for ultimately, the operation is an ill-fated debacle. Whereas the first film was a picture made up of wide panoramas, this second one is full of tight close-ups and atmospheric shots that make the story feel more like a suspense thriller. As we watch the mission fail, it brings home for the viewer why the efforts of Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Lula, and the rest of the Bolivarian revolution was so vital for the Global South. And that is how a film that ends with the death of the protagonist can be a happy ending, for we know the future has potential.

I am of course quite disturbed by recent developments in the Global South that demonstrate the empire is on the offensive. Recent events in South Africa led one ANC official to say that a coup was being fomented by agents in the American embassy and was based around Obama’s Young African Leadership Initiative, an organization which expanded into the country shortly after the death of President Nelson Mandela. This is important to understand because Cuba is a historic ally of the ANC, having sent troops and weapons to aid them in the anti-apartheid border wars. At the same time, Argentina and Venezuela have seen American-backed electoral victories that deliver their people back into the maw of neoliberalism. Events in Bolivia and Ecuador also indicate this trend is a serious threat. Should Obama get his way, Cuba would be encircled by enemies once again while being wracked by debt that CEOs are arriving in Havana to unleash this week. Looking again to Fanon, we find these words: [T]he liquidation of the Castro regime will be quite peaceful.

For now, all we can do as Leftists is stand in solidarity against empire and war while agitating others to the cause.

“After reading the bill, I was convinced that it does not stop the process, it really doesn’t shut the program down, nor does it significantly slow it,” Langevin told RI Future in an interview, which you can listen to in its entirety below. “It added modest layer of new security in terms of the vetting process but nothing that would shut down or significantly slow the vetting process, and that’s ultimately why I supported it.”

He said it wasn’t difficult to vote against President Obama, who strongly urged Democrats not to support the Republican-backed bill. “All of my decisions are based on the merits. They don’t belong to a particular party or special interest.”

Langevin, who told me he didn’t see State Sen. Elaine Morgan’s comments about Islam and Muslim refugees, said he thinks the United States should accept more Syrian refugees than the 10,000 Obama has called for – and that he thinks the government should add resources to ensure the refugee process moves quicker.

“I strongly support additional resources that will expedite the process,” he said. “The best thing we can do to make sure we’re not slowing the process down is put more resources into vetting so we can speed it up.”

When asked how he thinks Rhode Islanders feel about the issue, he said, “I’ve heard from people on both sides of this issue.”

You can listen to our full 20 minute conversation on his vote in particular and the Syrian refugee crisis in general here:

• Dems draw more with love than GOP does with fear
• Cathy Cool Rumsey will run against Elaine Morgan
• Rep. Nardolillo thinks Elaine Morgan owes Muslims an apology
• State senators to hold rally to support Syrian refugees
• Humanists of RI support sheltering Syrian refugees in RI
• Cicilline to Obama: Accept 100,000 Syrian refugees
• Diossa to Obama: Central Falls will take in Syrian refugees
• Dorcas International explains Rhode Island refugee process

“We’ve always been a beacon to the rest of the world,” Cicilline told RI Future, in explaining why he implored the president to do more. “It speaks to our character as a nation. We need to regain that moral high ground.”

Earlier this month the Obama Administration announced it would increase the number of Syrian refugees the US takes in this from about 1,500 to 10,000. Subsequently, Cicilline wrote a letter to the president saying the US should take in 100,000 Syrian refugees.

“Other countries look to the United States to lead when it comes to refugee resettlement, and so it is absolutely critical that the U.S. lead by example,” reads the letter. “The U.S. should use its considerable global influence to encourage other nations, including within the European Union, to accept additional refugees and increase the resources available to support them.”

• Cicilline letter to Obama on accepting 100,000 Syrian refugees
• More news: Diossa to Obama: Central Falls will take in Syrian refugees

More than 70 members of Congress co-signed the letter to Obama, including Joe Kennedy, of Massachusetts. Congressman Jim Langevin did not sign the letter. Langevin spokeswoman Meg Geoghegan said, “While he shares Congressman Cicilline’s belief that the U.S. should do far more for these refugees, he does not feel comfortable prescribing that specific number until we have assurances that the resources exist to actually process that many people in a timely way without risking any potential impact to American security.”

Langevin told RI Future in a prepared statement: “We are facing one of the worst humanitarian crises in history, and our country and others around the world must do more for those who have faced unimaginable suffering, leaving their homes behind in fear for their families. The United States must significantly increase the number of refugees we take, while ensuring adequate resources to protect the security of our citizens.”

Cicilline said his request to accept 100,000 Syrian refugees is based on the recommendation of the Refugee Council USA, a coalition of 20 of the leading refugee aid organizations in this country. Refugee Council USA also recommends the United States increase the overall number of refugees it takes in this year from 100,000 to 200,000. Last year, the US accepted about 70,000 refugees but only 1,500 from Syria, which has seen an exodus of more than 4 million citizens since the start of a bloody civil war four years ago.

Cicilline’s letter points out that accepting 100,000 Syrian refugees would only increase the US population by “less than a quarter of one percent” while “Lebanon’s population by contrast has grown 25% with the influx of refugees at its borders.” In a reference to the viral video of a Syrian boy who died while fleeing his country, the letter continues, “How can we tell little Aylan’s family that we simply can’t manage to welcome them, that it would be too dangerous or take jobs away. Surely we can do better.”

Cicilline visited Syrian refugee camps on a recent trip to Jordan, which helped cement in his mind the need for the United States to be a leader in responding to the crisis. In a conversation with a Jordanian man, he explained that there is some political resistance to accepting Syrian refugees in the United States. The Jordanian man told him, “This wasn’t a debate. These are our brothers and sisters fleeing war and we welcomed them,” according to the congressman.

Cicilline also said taking in refugees is a “sensible economic decision,” saying “in 2013 69 percent of all refugees were self-sufficient after 180 days. By comparison, refugees living in camps around the world are often relying on international assistance for a very long time – 10, 15, 20 years – and in most cases the United States is paying for most of that.”

Cicilline spoke earlier this week in Washington at a press conference about the Syrian refugee crisis.

“We will welcome the Syrian families to make homes and new lives in our cities,” reads the letter, a copy of which was sent to RI Future from Diossa.

“Indeed, we are writing to say that we stand ready to work with your Administration to do much more and to urge you to increase still further the number of Syrian refugees the United States will accept for resettlement,” it reads. “The surge of humanity fleeing war and famine is the largest refugee crisis since World War II. The United States is in a position to lead a global narrative of inclusion and support. This is a challenge we can meet, and the undersigned mayors stand ready to help you meet it.”

There are at least 4 million Syrian refugees fleeing civil war and the oppressive ruling regime, and many million more fleeing similar strife in other Middle Eastern and African nations. The exodus has been called the greatest refuge crisis since World War II and the sheer volume of refugees has overwhelmed Europe. The United States, which has accepted only 1,500 Syrian refugees in four years of civil war, has been criticized for not doing more.

Diossa joins the mayors of Boston, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Hartford, Conn., Santa Fe, NM, Syracuse, NY, Clarkston Georgia, Paterson, NJ and others in signing the letter. No other Rhode Island mayors signed the letter.

Central Falls has several connections to Syria already. In the early part of the 20th century, many of the Syrian refugees fleeing the Turks settled in Central Falls, according to this official history of migration into Rhode Island. There’s even a Catholic church in Central Falls that was founded by Syrian immigrants in 1907, according to this article in the Rhode Island Catholic. And former CF Mayor Tom Lazieh is of Syrian decent, according to this 2013 Providence Journal article.

Tara Granahan, of WPRO, tweeted about the letter earlier today.

This is the letter in its entirety, as well as the signers:

Dear President Obama:

We commend your decision to open America’s doors to at least 10,000 Syrian refugees displaced by civil war, and applaud your commitment to increase the overall number of refugees the U.S. will resettle over the course of the next two years. This announcement is a vital initial step to honoring America’s commitment to support those fleeing oppression.

As the mayors of cities across the country, we see first-hand the myriad ways in which immigrants and refugees make our communities stronger economically, socially and culturally. We will welcome the Syrian families to make homes and new lives in our cities. Indeed, we are writing to say that we stand ready to work with your Administration to do much more and to urge you to increase still further the number of Syrian refugees the United States will accept for resettlement. The surge of humanity fleeing war and famine is the largest refugee crisis since World War II. The United States is in a position to lead a global narrative of inclusion and support. This is a challenge we can meet, and the undersigned mayors stand ready to help you meet it.

Our cities have been transformed by the skills and the spirit of those who come to us from around the world. The drive and enterprise of immigrants and refugees have helped build our economies, enliven our arts and culture, and enrich our neighborhoods.

We have taken in refugees, and will help make room for thousands more. This is because the United States has developed a robust screening and background check that assures us that we know who we are welcoming into this country. With national security systems in place, we stand ready to support the Administration in increasing the numbers of refugees we can accept.

With Pope Francis’ visit, we are mindful of his call for greater compassion in the face of this ongoing crisis and stand with you in supporting those “journeying towards the hope of life.”

Sincerely,

Ed Pawlowski, Mayor of Allentown, PA

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Mayor of Baltimore, MD

Martin J. Walsh, Mayor of Boston, MA

James Diossa, Mayor of Central Falls, RI

Mark Kleinschmidt, Mayor of Chapel Hill, NC

Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago, IL

Edward Terry, Mayor of Clarkston, GA

Nan Whaley, Mayor of Dayton, OH

Domenick Stampone, Mayor of Haledon, NJ

Pedro E. Segarra, Mayor of Hartford, CT

Eric Garcetti, Mayor of Los Angeles, CA

Betsy Hodges, Mayor of Minneapolis, MN

Bill de Blasio, Mayor of New York City, NY

Jose Torres, Mayor of Paterson, NJ

William Peduto, Mayor of Pittsburgh, PA

Javier Gonzales, Mayor of Santa Fe, NM

Francis G. Slay, Mayor of St. Louis, MO

Stephanie A. Miner, Mayor of Syracuse, NY

A new poll from Monmouth State University released Monday shows 41 percent of respondents are unsure if the deal should be inked while 32 percent think lawmakers should not support it and 27 percent think they should. And according to The Hill, 35 House Democrats support the deal and 29 are undecided while 18 Senate Democrats support and 20 are undecided.

The Rhode Island congressional delegation is on the fence, too.

“Congressman Langevin continues to review the agreement and consider the options in advance of Congressional action this fall,” said his spokeswoman Meg Geoghegan. “He has not yet made a final decision on how he will vote on the issue.” Rich Luchette, a spokesman for Congressman David Cicilline said simply, “Congressman Cicilline is reviewing the proposed agreement.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse “hasn’t announced a position on the Iran deal yet,” according to spokesman Seth Larson. And Chip Unruh, spokesman for Senator Jack Reed, said the ranking member of the RI delegation, and a nationally-regarded foreign policy expert, “continues to thoroughly review.”

As a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Reed has been conducting hearings on the issue with Arizona Sen. John McCain. The Hill lists Reed in the yes column but RIPR coverage from July 16 says Reed “has not decided whether he supports President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.” Unruh said The Hill “must be speculating.”

Speculation or not, The Hill lists noted progressive leaders Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as supporting the deal.

This agreement is obviously not all that many of us would have liked but it beats the alternative – a war with Iran that could go on for years,” Sanders said, according to The Hill. And quoting her from the Boston Globe, Elizabeth Warren has said, “The question now before Congress — the only question before Congress — is whether the recently announced nuclear agreement represents our best available option for preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I am convinced that it does.”

Progressives have largely supported the deal with Code Pink calling it “a great victory for peace-loving people around the world.” The New York Times has a 200 word summary of the deal.

The president is also largely at odds with Rhode Island’s congressional delegation on fast-tracking a potential trade compact with 12 Pacific Rim nations. Of the Ocean State’s four elected officials in Congress, three have now spoken out against giving Obama fast track authority. Only Senator Jack Reed is still holding his cards close as the Senate Finance Committee considers granting the president trade promotion authority today.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said he opposes fast track authority for the TPP deal, he told RI Future exclusively today.

“It would be a mistake to provide fast-track authority for trade agreements that could further undermine American wages, manufacturing jobs, and our environment,” he said in an emailed statement. “We need the opportunity carefully review any proposed trade agreements to ensure we’re not repeating the mistakes of past free trade deals.”

In February, Whitehouse gave a speech against trade agreements in general on the Senate floor in February, saying: “I start with a state that has been on the losing end of these trade deals. People say that they are going to enforce the environmental and human rights and labor and safety requirements of these agreements. I haven’t seen it. And I gotta say I don’t like the process very much either. It is secret, we are kept out of it. Who’s in it is a lot of really big corporations and the are up to, I think, a lot of no good in a lot of the deals.”

Congressman David Cicilline is against it, too. He wrote this op/ed in the Providence Journal last month.

“Any agreement that promotes fast-track trade to advance the Trans-Pacific Partnership without thorough review and Congressional input is a bad deal for Rhode Island workers,” he told RI Future yesterday. “Congress should play an important role in making sure trade policies are fair for American workers, businesses, intellectual property holders, and consumers. The fast-track model undercuts oversight of trade agreements and makes it more difficult to protect the interests of working families. We should be working to promote American manufacturing, implement flexible workplace policies that benefit middle-class families, and finally raise the minimum wage so everyone has an opportunity to succeed.”

Also yesterday, Congressman Jim Langevin reaffirmed his opposition to a TPP deal. In February he and Cicilline signed onto a letter opposing it and yesterday he emailed this statement to reporters:

“The United States has been working with TPP negotiating partners for more than three years. This agreement could greatly shift global trading patterns and accordingly deserves the highest level of scrutiny to ensure it does not displace U.S. jobs or undermine our country’s competitiveness. While I favor expanding global trade, it is important that any free trade agreement places American workers and companies on an enforceable level playing field with foreign trading partners when it comes to labor rights, environmental regulation, intellectual property protection and other critical issues. For that reason, I am opposed to passing Trade Promotion Authority legislation with respect to the TPP.

“Congress has the responsibility to set trade policy, and ‘fast track’ procedures largely circumvent this important review. There is a better way to make decisions of this magnitude that significantly impact America’s place in the global economy, and that must include robust debate and discussion from all partners, including Congress. I will continue to work to ensure that trade agreements protect American workers and consumers and do not undermine America’s ability to compete in the global market.”

Reed, on the other hand, isn’t as vocal, according to spokesman Chip Unruh, who said Rhode Island’s senior senator “will take a look at the Finance Committee’s proposal, but he wants to ensure any trade agreement benefits Rhode Island consumers, workers, and businesses.” Unruh noted Reed rejected such TPA authority in both 2002 and 2007.

According to the Washington Post “most Congressional Democrats are opposed” but Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is pushing for a deal that he says has benefits for liberals.

In March the New York Times reported the “ambitious 12-nation trade accord pushed by President Obama would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurt their business, according to a classified document.” The Nation called the TPP proposal “NAFTA on steroids” in 2012.