New York Times Letter to the Editor: In Trade Talks, Secrecy or Openness?

To the Editor:

Re “Don’t Keep Trade Talks Secret” (Op-Ed, April 14):

Margot E. Kaminski’s call for greater trade openness is correct. Indeed, secrecy is even impairing our responsibility as members of Congress to exercise effective oversight.

Open trade should begin with open access. Unfortunately, the office of the United States Trade Representative thrives on secrecy, opposing proposals from our trading partners for greater openness and denying Congress full access to information already available to foreign governments.

I have long sought unfettered access to relevant trade documents. Now, fast-track negotiating authority is sought to deny lawmakers a chance to amend the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other agreements (front page, April 17). Fast track removes the congressional steering wheel and brake, derailing a full debate and further restricting access.

Congressional staff members with a “top secret” clearance have been allowed only within the last month a limited review of texts stamped “confidential” by the trade representative solely to deny access. If these trade deals are so good, why so secret?

A meaningful trade debate must be more than a flashcard “pro” or “con” response. Evaluating an agreement’s true effect must involve more than merely counting widgets crossing international borders. We cannot afford a race to the bottom for workers, the environment and taxpayers.

LLOYD DOGGETT

Washington

The writer, a Democrat, represents Texas’s 35th District in the House and is a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, with jurisdiction over trade.