Trade dispute grows testy between Warren, Obama

Trade dispute grows testy between Warren, Obama
By Peter Urban GATEHOUSE MEDIA WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON – A clash between President Barack Obama and U.S. Sen.
Elizabeth Warren over trade escalated this week as the two Democrats
exchanged accusations that each is peddling misinformation on a
12-nation, Trans-Pacific pact that is nearing completion.

The Massachusetts senator and other progressive Democrats have voiced
strong opposition to President Obama's request to fast track the trade
agreement – saying the details should be made public before Congress
limits its ability to weigh in.

Legislation that would give fast-track authority to negotiate the
Pacific trade pact cleared House and Senate committees this week and
could head to the House and Senate floors in coming weeks.

Calling it a “secret deal” in a statement posted on her campaign
website, Warren urged supporters to “send a loud message” against a
fast-track for trade agreements until the public can see what is
actually in the deal.

"The government doesn't want you to read this massive new trade
agreement," Warren wrote. "It's top secret."

On Friday, Obama hopped on a conference call with a small group of
reporters to defend the trade deal and take issue with Warren and
other progressives over claims that it is a secret deal, according to
published reports that the White House confirmed as accurate.

While some details of the trade deal are still being negotiated, Obama
said the text has been available to Congress for weeks and would have
at least three months to review “every comma” of the final text before
signing off on it.

"So there's nothing secret about it, and when I just keep on hearing
people repeating this notion that it's secret, I gotta say, it's
dishonest. And it's a little concerning when I see friends of mine
resorting to those tactics,” Obama said, according to a report in
Talking Points Memo.

On Saturday, Warren and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, wrote Obama to
take issue with his claim that critics were being “dishonest” in
claiming the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact is a “secret deal.”

“Characterizing the assessments of labor unions, journalists, members
of Congress, and others who disagree with your approach to
transparency on trade issues as 'dishonest' is both untrue and
unlikely to serve the best interests of the American people,” they
wrote.

While members of Congress can review the draft text of the agreement,
it is classified – meaning that they can see it but are barred from
sharing the specifics of the text with the public. Warren and Brown
asked the president to declassify the text and release it publicly
before Congress votes on “fast track” authority to facilitate the
ratification of the trade pact.

“Because the negotiations are largely complete, there is no reason the
TPP must remain secret from the American people,” they wrote.

Warren and Brown also noted that 28 trade advisory committees – made
up largely of corporate executives and lobbyists – have been consulted
as the trade pact was negotiated. Average citizens, they said, should
at least have an opportunity to read it before Congress agrees to
limit its own ability to amend, shape or block the deal.

“The press and the public should be allowed to examine the details
that corporate executives and lobbyists have already been allowed to
influence for years,” they wrote.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Friday that the
president is eager to dispel some of the “instinctive resistance” to
trade agreements that has its roots in previous agreements like the
1994 North American Free Trade agreement.

“The kind of trade agreement that he is seeking to broker is one that
would learn the lessons from those previous agreements to ensure that
we're maximizing the upside for American businesses and American
workers,” Earnest said. “There are enforceable provisions as it
relates to labor standards. There are enforceable provisions related
to environmental standards. For the first time in a trade promotion
authority bill, there are provisions related to human rights.”