Second, that there is no downpact has already been largely negotiated and that there would be no harm in making its text available. Indeed, Warren said, even President George W. Bush did better: “When he negotiated a trade agreement, he posted it months in advance of asking Congress to give him even partial trade promotion authority to move this thing through quickly.”
Arguments ring hollow
Unpack these arguments, and you find more flaws than truth:
• This is not secrecy for secrecy’s sake; it’s secrecy for the sake of negotiating advantage. Exposing U.S. bargaining positions or the offers of foreign counterparts to public view before the agreement is completed would undermine the outcome.
Indeed, extracting the maximum concessions from other countries may not be possible until after Congress grants the fast-track authority to convince foreign competitors the agreement has a shot. The labor leaders who decry this backroom deal wouldn’t want their collective bargaining negotiations conducted in the public glare.
• This is not secrecy until the end of time; in fact, it’s secrecy with an explicit end. The fast-track Trade Promotion Authority now being debated in the Senate requires that the underlying trade deal be made public 60 days before signing — the first time such a waiting period has been imposed. Months more will pass before a final congressional vote.
• This is not secrecy that excludes lawmakers. In fact, every one of them can see the text of the still-evolving deal. Many can bring their staffs to the secure facility — at the Capitol — to help them review it. The fast-track legislation contains even more guarantees of transparency going forward, providing for new procedures that would allow staff on the committees that supervise trade deals to review the documents without lawmakers present.
So what about those corporate lobbyists writing the deal behind closed doors? Well, the working groups were established by congressional fiat. The Obama administration has moved to expand the membership to include representatives of labor and environmental groups. It tried to kick lobbyists off — until it was sued for doing so.
Is the transparency perfect? No. The rules for what staff can see the text, and whether lawmakers need to be present, could be loosened. Perhaps the administration could share more details with the working groups — but, then again, the chief complaint has been that these groups have too much influence, not too little information.
Bottom line: The secrecy argument is mere excuse. The people using it wouldn’t be happy with this trade deal if the negotiations were broadcast live on C-SPAN.