Bogus Case Against the Trade Deal

Yes, it will take only a simple majority at that point, but weren't progressives just last year railing about the filibuster and its abuse? If anything, because fast-track authority is usually granted years in advance, lawmakers being asked to vote on it now know more about what they'll be getting in the TPP than is usually the case.

-- 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.

As to Warren's complaint that Bush released the text of a previous trade agreement, the countries involved in the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreed to make initial proposals public. This disclosure was a departure, not the norm -- and, by the way, the deal fizzled.

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.

========

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.