There’s an old book titled “Showdown at Gucci Gulch” about the process to get Reagans tax reform passed and how special interests and lobbyists distorted the process start to finish.
It’s a must-read book for Conservatives, IMHO.
It also speaks to the inability of the Congress to resist such pressures. Which would only be exacerbated in a far-reaching international treaty (er, agreement) situation.
So I see the need for both secrecy (to shut out outside influenced) and a no-amendment up or down vote (to prevent amendments that would require negotiations to be reopened)
What I don’t like, again, is the simple majority vote rule. Especially for something far reaching and institutionally invasive. Like changing the power dynamic between the President and Congress on immigration issues. 67 votes should be needed for an international treaty (er, agreement) that does that.
I would like it to be just like other legislation in that there is an opportunity to amend. If that were the case, it is likely that the deal would be crafted in a way that could avoid them. If not, then it would be amended and the other signatories to the treaty... i mean agreement LOL... would have to agree.