[CTC] Lawmakers re-up call for Raimondo to address big tech ‘revolving door’ claims

[Arthur Stamoulis]

Lawmakers re-up call for Raimondo to address big tech ‘revolving door’ claims
https://insidetrade.com/trade/lawmakers-re-call-raimondo-address-big-tech-%E2%80%98revolving-door%E2%80%99-claims <https://insidetrade.com/trade/lawmakers-re-call-raimondo-address-big-tech-%E2%80%98revolving-door%E2%80%99-claims>
10/7/22
 
The Commerce Department must better explain the role former technology company workers play in crafting digital trade policy, two Democratic lawmakers said in a letter this week, renewing their call for the administration to address a “revolving door” between the government and big tech companies. 
 
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a Finance Committee member, and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) in July sent a letter <https://insidetrade.com/node/174578> to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo raising concerns about some department officials they said were previously employed by big tech companies – such as Amazon, Google and Meta – and the role these employees play in shaping digital trade policies.
 
They asked for answers to several questions by Aug. 20. Commerce answered those questions, but not sufficiently, they say. Accordingly, Warren and Jayapal asked them again this week.
 
In an Oct. 6 letter <https://insidetrade.com/sites/insidetrade.com/files/documents/2022/oct/wto2022_0712a.pdf>, to the Commerce secretary, the lawmakers wrote they are “concerned about the role of these and similar individuals in shaping digital trade policy because Big Tech’s digital trade agenda threatens protections for consumer privacy and worker safety and efforts to combat discrimination, misinformation, and disinformation.” Notably, they said Commerce should be more transparent about which staffers were working on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity and the U.S.-European Union Trade and Technology Council.
 
The lawmakers contend that “free, unrestricted flow of data across borders” – something for which they say big tech companies lobby – will restrict the U.S. government’s ability to regulate data, make sensitive personal information vulnerable to data leaks and allow companies to "more easily offshore jobs ... to countries with lower wages and worse labor standards.”
 
“Labor and other standards protect American jobs and lift up workers overseas, and must not be undermined in our trade agreements because Big Tech firms label them unfair ‘barriers to trade,’” they added.
 
IPEF’s trade pillar, headed by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, is expected to include new standards for the digital economy. At last month’s first in-person IPEF ministerial, USTR Katherine Tai said officials from the 14 IPEF countries sought to work toward “standards on cross-border data flows and data localization <https://insidetrade.com/node/174930>.” At the ministerial, Malaysian Trade Minister Azmin Ali told Inside U.S. Trade he thought IPEF members could come to an agreement on digital economy rules within a year <https://insidetrade.com/node/174934>, though Tai has called talk of IPEF “early harvest <https://insidetrade.com/node/175040>” deals premature.
 
Warren and Jayapal also contend Raimondo did not sufficiently answer most of the questions the lawmakers posed in their previous letter, which included queries on department policy designed to prevent conflicts of interest and the extent to which personnel previously affiliated with big tech companies are involved with IPEF and TTC negotiations.
 
“The response did not provide information on which Commerce Department employees involved in negotiating free trade agreements were previously employed by Big Tech firms, and their roles in these negotiations, nor did it provide information on how you would address the untoward influence of Big Tech on free trade agreements,” the letter said. “In fact, the response did not provide specific answers to seven of the eight questions we asked, merely reiterating that you and your staff are following the Biden Administration’s ethics policies.”
 
Warren’s office declined to provide a copy of the Commerce Department’s response to the first letter, as did Commerce. Asked for comment on the lawmakers’ concerns, the Commerce Department referred to the Biden administration’s ethics policies.
 
“There isn’t an inch of daylight between the Secretary’s position on Big Tech and President Biden’s position on Big Tech,” a Commerce Department spokesperson said in an emailed statement. “Additionally, every single one of Commerce’s political appointees was approved by the White House, and every single one of them signed President Biden’s ethics pledge, which imposes the highest ethical standards in American history.”
 
The spokesperson also provided information on the administration’s ethics pledge, which it said imposes “specific restrictions that go beyond existing Executive Branch requirements.” The pledge “prohibits appointees, for two years, from participating in any particular matter involving specific parties … that is directly and substantially related to their former employer or former clients,” extends a “cooling-off” period for senior appointees from one year to two and “imposes additional restrictions on appointees who were registered lobbyists, including barring them from participating on particular matters on which they lobbied, and from participating in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls,” according to the spokesperson.
 
In the letter, lawmakers also tied their concerns about an alleged revolving door to broader congressional concerns about transparency. They cited an August letter <https://insidetrade.com/node/174667> signed by Warren and 8 other members of Congress that called for administration officials to conduct “robust” consultation with Congress and outside stakeholders on IPEF and the nascent Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity <https://insidetrade.com/node/174216>.
 
The August letter said IPEF and APEP marked “a significant and concerning expansion” of the use of “executive agreements” in trade. Such agreements are not subject to congressional approval.
 
“If negotiations on IPEF and APEP proceed, we urge you to ensure that any agreement benefits American workers, not corporate offshoring, and to provide Congress and the public with clearer insight into your approach to the negotiation process, including through robust consultation throughout the process and congressional approval of any binding commitments,” it added.
 


Arthur Stamoulis
Citizens Trade Campaign
(202) 494-8826




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.citizenstrade.org/pipermail/ctcfield-citizenstrade.org/attachments/20221013/9babf193/attachment.htm>