USTR Rejects Rep. Issa's Request To Observe TPP Negotiations
from the sorry,-we-can't-have-that-kind-of-transparency dept
So much for "transparency." While the USTR continues to talk up its faux transparency as if it's real transparency, the truth is always going to come out. Earlier this week, we wrote about how Rep. Darrell Issa had asked the USTR if he could come and observe the next round of TPP negotiations, taking place next week in San Diego. The USTR took all of two days to reject such a request, showing that it's not at all interested in any sort of actual transparency with the Congress who is supposed to oversee issues of international commerce. The USTR told Issa he could only attend the "public" portions, like anyone else. In response, Issa put out the following statement:“The U.S. Trade Representative has once again chosen to block Congress from observing negotiations for this vital trade agreement over which the House and Senate have fundamental constitutional responsibility.
“The TPP process should be transparent and open to oversight, not a secretive backroom negotiation. TPP agreements impact multiple sectors of the American economy--especially our ability to innovate and create new intellectual property, as well as preserve an open Internet.
“Congress has a constitutional duty to oversee trade negotiations and not simply act as a rubber stamp to deals about which they were kept in the dark. While I had hoped the TPP would permit me to observe this round of the negotiation process firsthand, our efforts to open TPP negotiations up to transparency will continue.”
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: darrell issa, negotiations, ron kirk, tpp, transparency, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Umm... treason *is* a criminal charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Counterfeit transparency! Counterfeit democracy! Counterfeit justice! Counterfeit freedom! Buy in bulk! Tell nobody!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will prove easier to shut this crap down when it comes about. Its probably just a huge shit sandwich anyway.
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USTR IS betng transparent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USTR IS betng transparent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: USTR IS betng transparent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This may be a case of context, where Rep. Issa's interactions with the various federal departments is now being viewed in a larger context than the issues of any single department. Something to consider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
His motivation is suspect; his topic in this scenario is not...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> that Rep. Issa has taken with the "Fast & Furious" debacle
What exactly is irresponsible about wanting to get to the bottom of a government program that provided firearms to drug cartels and resulted in dozens of deaths, including the death of an American LEO?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We takes what we can gets in this day and age of governmental alienation from the will of the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is absolute bullshit. It's unfortunate that people are willing to try and blow minor things out of proportion to score points with voters, but you cannot discount criticism simply because it can be seen as partisan. Perhaps the sole advantage of our present two party system is that we can usually rely on there being someone to catch malfeasance by their opponents. I would hope Mr. Issa would be taking this stance if negotiations for TPP were occurring under a republican president, but as it is, we should be thankful someone is standing up for the people of this country, even if it can be written off as partisanship.
As for the ATF stuff... it is deeply partisan, but ignoring the initial issue (where from what I've read, it seems like ATF desperately wanted to interdict the gun shipments but weren't legally allowed to) I think everyone, no matter how you feel about the president or congress, should be deeply disturbed whenever a president claims immunity from congressional oversight in any issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So....
America, you're fucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If ever there was a time for congress to be petty and bitter it would be now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oversight and transparency don't pay the bills. Oversight and transparency don't get me nice cars, nice houses, and potential revolving door and campaign contribution favors. Back door dealings do. Congress wants to impose oversight but what do I get out of it? Absolutely nothing. So go away with this transparency nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the whole point is that there shouldn't be an inner sanctum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I understand that you don't like it. I'm not even saying it's right. My point is that Issa has no particularly standing to make demands. The ground rules for negotiation by the parties. Issa's only standing here, is grandstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The same is not true for TPP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I understand that you don't like it. Though you say things you think make sense, they don't. My point is the American public (and their representatives) have standing to make demands. The ground rules for negotiation by the parties (I don't know what the hell that means so just copied it verbatim). Your only leg to stand on is you like calling out people by name even though you don't provide your own (stupid troll trick I see in everyone of your posts).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqaKi9NTzS4
It'll be awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why pretend Fast Track isn't coming back?
If and when Fast Track is reinstated, the secrecy and lack of public input will be part of the official, Congressionally approved process. Negotiation will conclude in secret, and the implementing legislation will be written and submitted by the administration (not Congress) at its leisure. Once submitted, it will have only 45 days to go through committee and 15 days to get a floor vote in both chambers. It can't die in committee, it can't be debated more than 20 hours (so no filibuster), and the bill cannot be amended at any point in the process; it will only be put to an up or down vote. This system is designed to minimize public debate and to minimize the risk of failure of the U.S. to live up to its obligations under the agreement.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of the agreements sought under this authority were approved by Congress. So although Fast Track has its critics on both sides of the aisle, they haven't got the nerve to rally a majority to go against the president. To do so would embarrass the U.S. and undermine his ability to negotiate future agreements—the assumption, probably correct, being that the public and Congress would never approve all of the concessions that were made in order to get other countries to sign on to the agreement. So when Congress re-grants Fast Track in 2013, subsequent approval of the TPP and its non-Congressionally-authored implementing legislation is essentially guaranteed.
Given that Fast Track, by design, completely excludes the public interest from consideration until the very last step of the process, and given that Congress, after granting Fast Track in order to get agreements negotiated, is highly unlikely to then decline to vote-through the "fruits" of that authority, it seems pointless to argue about exactly how much time is available to the public to scrutinize the final draft and register objections.
Wyden and Issa can raise a stink about the process being non-transparent and antithetical to democracy, but they both voted for the Fast Track extensions and all of the resulting trade agreements and implementing legislation, and you can bet they'll do it again. I see no reason to believe they're serious about defending the public interest, here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why pretend Fast Track isn't coming back?
CRS Report for Congress RL33743: “Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy” by J. F. Hornbeck, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, and William H. Cooper, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, Congressional Research Service, April 7, 2011
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why pretend Fast Track isn't coming back?
Weak Congressional oversight is weak. The record on what actually happens when TPA is granted stands for itself.
While we're quoting...
Core Aspects of Fast Track Trade-Authority Delegation
...An advisory-committee system was established to obtain private sector input on trade-agreement negotiations from presidentially appointed advisors. [Public Law 93-618 § 135.] This system is organized by sector and industry and included 700 advisors comprised mainly of industry representatives. Throughout trade talks, these individuals obtained special access to confidential negotiating documents to which most members of Congress and the public have no access. Additionally, they have regular access to executive-branch negotiators and must file reports on proposed trade agreements. The Fast Track legislation listed committees for numerous sectors, but not consumer, health, environmental or other public interests. ["Trade Advisory Committees: Privileged Access for Polluters," Public Citizen Report, December 1991. Labor was mentioned in the statute and a labor advisory committee was established. In the 1984 Fast Track (Public Law 98-573 § 306(c)(2)(A)), a new advisory committee was added for representatives of state and local governments and their associations. Lawsuits in the 1990s resulted in establishment of a Trade and Environment advisory committee, but it was comprised of equal numbers of industry- and environmental-group representatives, deadlocking its reports and eventually causing some of the environmental representatives to resign. See "White House Ordered to Hire Environmentalist," Miami Herald, Jan. 22, 2003.]...
White House wants trade promotion authority: Kirk
The Obama administration plans to ask Congress this year to renew White House "trade promotion authority" so it can finish talks on an Asia Pacific trade pact and pursue other possible initiatives, the top U.S. trade official said... "We've got to have it," U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk told the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee...
Kirk declined to say when the White House would make a formal request, but said it could need the authority by the end of the year because of its goal of concluding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement... Republicans and business groups have pressed the White House to seek renewal of trade promotion authority, which traditionally requires Congress to vote on trade agreements within 90 days and without any amendments. Representative Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, said it was "critical" the White House have trade promotion authority so other countries know any agreements they make with the United States will not unravel during debate in Congress. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell welcomed Kirk's comments and urged the White House to send up draft legislation and work with congressional leaders to schedule a vote on the measure...
Many Democrats have qualms about the legislation since it signals White House plans to negotiate more trade agreements. That is a divisive issue within the party because of opposition from labor groups. The legislation typically also contains detailed negotiating objectives the White House is expected to follow in trade talks. The Obama administration has been using the expired trade promotion authority as guidance for the ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership talks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why pretend Fast Track isn't coming back?
Not at all. The quoted portion of CRS Report RL33743 points out that initial Congressional debate and legislation setting out negotiating objectives is a very important part of the process of delegating negotiating authority to the President. That was the point of quoting that passage.
But after Congress has —by law— delegated its authority to the President to pursue certain objectives, and further —by law— appropriated certain sums from the treasury to provide means to exercise that delegated authority, then I do believe Congress has some duty to ensure that the President, and his subordinate officials, are spending the money on those lawful objectives—and not converting funds to some other purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why pretend Fast Track isn't coming back?
The Reuters article I linked to suggests that Congress expects the administration to write the renewal legislation, and that the only part that might be reined in is its duration in order to prevent too many more trade agreements from sneaking in...but even then it would only be an issue taken up by a subset of Democrats, possibly not enough to matter. I'd say likely not enough to matter, because the moderates will give the president what he wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why pretend Fast Track isn't coming back?
Somewhat incidentally, your first link, The Rise and Fall of Fast Track Trade Authority, by Todd Tucker and Lori Wallach, Public Citizen, May 2009, contains this interesting snippet in the next, concluding chapter:
(Emphasis added.)
Of course, the United States Trade Representative's official position, blessed by his boss, may differ from his personal feelings.
At any rate, the Tucker and Wallach book was worth reading. Thanks for the link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why pretend Fast Track isn't coming back?
I don't even know what to say about Ron Kirk...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And why is that (allowed)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Very well, Mr. Kirk. Consider yourself impeached."
Or, even more to the point:
"You're fired."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“High crimes” refers to offenses against the state—that is, what might be called “political crimes”. Although, naturally, in the US, all “political crimes“ should always be informed by the light of the First Amendment.
In your opinion, is misappropriation or conversion of Treasury money, a “high crime or misdemeanor”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> "You're fired."
Congress can't fire anyone in the Executive Branch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it were a treaty, the executive might have more authority to do this. But even treaties are supposed to be made with the 'advice and consent of the senate'. (Followed by 2/3 senate concurring with the finalized treaty). I don't recall that the USTR ever acting under the the advice nor consent of anyone beside the entertainment insiders.
As a congressional-executive agreement dealing specifically with the congressional power of foreign commerce, I think representatives have every right to say, 'Hey, what do you think you are doing?'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
These very same Congressmen who are asking "hey, what do you think you are doing?" all voted for Fast Track and the resulting trade agreements in the past. I can't say I'm optimistic about what will happen this time around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fast-Track negotiating authority —after the diplomats have already settled on the outlines of treaty language— is complete abandonment of Congress's role in setting initial negotiating objectives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't know why the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government reform would be interested?
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...our efforts to open TPP negotiations up to transparency will continue.”
WOW. "Efforts to open up transparency." Don't crack the fucking whip and put Kirk in his place; no lets be all nice and keep asking politely because Kirk doesn't answer to congress, they are equals or inferior to Kirk. Kirk isn't responding politely or behaving in a manner befitting his role. Better not hurt Kirk's feelings about his treasonous behavior and just keep letting him stick it to Congress' voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
19 USC § 3807 - Congressional Oversight Group
19 USC § 3807 - Congressional Oversight Group
a) Members and functions
. . . .
(2) Membership from the House
. . . .
(4) Accreditation
Each member of the Congressional Oversight Group described in paragraphs (2)(A) and (3)(A) shall be accredited by the United States Trade Representative on behalf of the President as an official adviser to the United States delegation in negotiations for any trade agreement to which this chapter applies. Each member of the Congressional Oversight Group described in paragraphs (2)(B) and (3)(B) shall be accredited by the United States Trade Representative on behalf of the President as an official adviser to the United States delegation in the negotiations by reason of which the member is in the Congressional Oversight Group. The Congressional Oversight Group shall consult with and provide advice to the Trade Representative regarding the formulation of specific objectives, negotiating strategies and positions, the development of the applicable trade agreement, and compliance and enforcement of the negotiated commitments under the trade agreement.
(Emphasis added.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 19 USC § 3807 - Congressional Oversight Group
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vote flowchart
1a. If no, can I find out what's in it?
1a(I). If no, STOP. The vote is NO.
.
.
.
You don't have to get very far down the list to know exactly what to do, at least if you have any integrity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contempt of congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.ustr.gov/open/comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]