Op-Ed The president wants to 'fast track' two massive trade deals. Congress should slow him down.

[cali]

President Obama is asking Congress to grant him trade promotion authority, the ability to "fast track" two massive trade deals with Europe and Asia: the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. This would allow him to pass those deals just as his negotiators will soon deliver them.

Fast track commits Congress to an up-or-down vote on whatever the administration negotiates, without the possibility of filibuster or amendments. It essentially excludes Congress from oversight and enables an efficient, executive-driven approach to international commerce. The purpose of this special treatment is to keep the House and Senate from inflicting death by a thousand cuts on delicate negotiating positions and specific concessions. Fast-track authority also bolsters the U.S. negotiating position with its foreign partners.

Most U.S. trade deals have been passed using fast-track authority, but the Asian and European partnerships under consideration now aren't like the fast-tracked deals of the past. In significant respects, they're not really trade agreements at all. Their new target is not trade tariffs but "behind-the-border" domestic regulations. Fast-tracking that kind of agreement would be a mistake.

Fast track was invented by President Franklin Roosevelt, and it became central to Depression-era trade policies and the liberalized post-World War II economic order. The original version of fast track allowed the president to enter into reciprocal deals that reduced tariffs within congressionally set limits. Congress pre-approved the broad terms of any agreement and otherwise delegated negotiating authority to the executive branch.

These trade policies — buoyed by fast track — were successful. Tariffs and export subsidies have mostly disappeared, except in the difficult and contentious case of agriculture. But instead of declaring victory, the trade agenda has become far more amorphous and consequential. What trade agreements now seek is to harmonize regulatory standards across countries. Fast track now serves a new purpose: not governance of trade but governance through trade.

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-grewal-congress-should-not-okay-fast-track-20150327-story.html

[WillyT]

1. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

Last edited Mon Mar 30, 2015, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)

[cali]

3. I think it's the best op-ed type piece I've seen on it.

[djean111]

2. The money shot - "not governance of trade but governance through trade."

That is exactly what these "trade" agreements are. They are not just nice little agreements about tariffs.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Good piece. I'd add that NAFTA was negotiated and signed by Bush, who was denied Fast Track

and thus NAFTA was kicked to Clinton, who should have killed it out right but instead modified it a bit and got it passed into law. I think it is important to remember that Fast Track authority is not some automatic process always applied to trade agreements.

[cali]

5. True, but it's been in effect most of the past 40 years- when there were significant

treaties being passed.

[stillwaiting]

6. Big kick. Huge kick. Needs to be kicked. nt

[cali]

7. another kick. because this is worth reading. really worth it.