Should Congress Approve the 'Fast-Track' for Free Trade Agreements (Like TPP)? (H.R. 2146)
Do you support or oppose this bill?
What is H.R. 2146?
(Updated December 31, 2018)
This bill was enacted on June 29, 2015
Update June, 2015: This bill was originally the "Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act," which allowed federal law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals from their government retirement plans after they turn 50. It had passed the House on a vote of 407 to 5, and was approved by the Senate through unanimous consent. Through the amendment process, the House turned the original bill into a "legislative vehicle" for the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act (TPA) — previously a standalone bill in both the House and Senate. Seem shady? It happens more often than you might think.
In its current form, this bill would let the President submit free trade agreements to Congress for approval or rejection. Congress would be able to cast an up or down vote on an agreement, but they couldn't amend the terms of the deal. This bill has been making waves in Congress because it's considered the missing piece to a U.S. entry into the 12-country trade deal, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact (TPP).
For those with transparency concerns — critics who call these fast-track deals "secret backdoor meetings for corporate power" —
this bill requires that the legislative text of the trade agreement
be made public 60 days before the President could sign off on the
deal. This legislation would also include a mechanism for taking away
the ‘fast-track’ authorities if an agreement doesn’t meet the
requirements of this bill in the judgement of either chamber of
Congress.
Tying Congress' hands on amendments and other legislative hurdles is why this bill is frequently referred to as a ‘fast-track’ for trade agreements. If passed, the fast-track would be available until July 1, 2018, and could be extended another three years at the President’s request.
Under this bill, all the trade agreements that the U.S. tries to get in on would have to meet some overall trade objectives including:
Gaining more open, equitable, and reciprocal market access.
Strengthening international trade and investment disciplines, and mediating disputes.
Growing the economy, raising living standards, promoting full employment in the U.S., enhancing U.S. competitiveness in terms of the economy (nationally and globally).
Ensuring that trade and environmental policies are mutually supportive — to protect and preserve the environment while optimizing the use of the world’s resources.
Respecting worker rights and the rights of children consistent with core labor standards — basically working in agreements that want to eliminate exploitative child labor.
Ensuring that small businesses get equal access to international markets, equitable trade benefits, and expanded export market opportunities.
Improving the effectiveness of legal regimes, creating more democratic societies, and bolstering respect for internationally recognized human rights.
Argument in favor
There is bipartisan agreement that this bill will open markets for U.S. exports, give the U.S. more access to imports, and save average consumers money. Congress would still have a chance to weigh in, and ultimately approve or deny any trade agreements.
Argument opposed
This bill doesn't protect American workers who could lose their jobs because of the increased competition from "fast-tracked" trade agreements. It also gives too much negotiating power to the President and corporations — not the American people.
Impact
Anyone in the U.S. who buys things, American businesses of all sizes and their employees, workers who lose their job as a result of international trade agreements, Congress, , the Department of Labor, the U.S. and global economy, and the President.
Cost of H.R. 2146
The CBO estimated that enacting the TPA — as H.R. 1890 — would not affect direct spending or revenues, as this would legislation would only facilitate the negotiation of trade agreements. Subsequently approved trade agreements could, however, lead to policies affecting spending and revenues.
Additional Info
In-Depth: President Obama has expressed his support for a fast-track trade authority,
vowing to only sign an agreement that helps improve the economic
circumstances of ordinary Americans. In the President’s press release,
the White House notes that exports currently support 11 million jobs in
the U.S., and that 95 percent of global consumers live outside our
borders.
The President has pushed back against critics of the trade bill, saying:
“I would not be doing this trade deal if I did not think it was a good deal for the middle class. And when you hear folks making a lot of suggestions about about how bad this trade deal is, when you dig into this bill they are wrong.”
Detractors of this bill have expressed concerns about a lack of safeguards against currency manipulation that
can hurt U.S. workers. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has criticized the secrecy of negotiations, alleging that she has been told:
“‘We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.’ If the American people would be opposed to a trade agreement if they saw it, then that agreement should not become the law of the U.S.”
Of Note:
There are two major trade agreements that could be approved under this authority — the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Countries that are involved in TPP negotiations include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the U.S., and Vietnam. The economies of these potential partners combine to account for 40 percent of global GDP or $27.5 trillion, 60 percent of which is attributed to the U.S.
The TTIP would be a trade agreement between the U.S. and the European Union (EU), and the combined GDP of the two economies amounts to about half of the world’s GDP. The U.S. and EU had 2014 GDPs of $17.4 trillion and $18.4 trillion, respectively, according to the International Monetary Fund.
According to estimates cited by The Economist, approving both the TTP and TTIP could boost U.S. GDP by $200 billion per year while global GDP would grow by an additional $400 billion.Media:
- Amendment magician, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) Press Release
- White House Policy Statement (In Favor)
- (H.R. 1890) CBO Cost Estimate
- Countable News (Context)
- Politico
- The Oregonian
- Reuters
- Wall Street Journal
- Washington Post
- Business Wire (In Favor)
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (Opposed)
(Photo Credit: Flickr user Eddy_Tw)
The Latest
-
SCOTUS Hears Trump Immunity Case, Appearing SkepticalUpdated Apr. 26, 2024, 11:00 a.m. EST The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today over whether Trump is immune from prosecution read more... States
-
IT: 🖋️ Biden signs a bill approving military aid and creating hurdles TikTok, and... Should the U.S. call for a ceasefire?Welcome to Thursday, April 25th, readers near and far... Biden signed a bill that approved aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, read more...
-
Biden Signs Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan Aid, and TikTok BillWhat’s the story? President Joe Biden signed a bill that approved aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, which could lead to a ban read more... Taiwan
-
Protests Grow Nationwide as Students Demand Divestment From IsraelUpdated Apr. 23, 2024, 11:00 a.m. EST Protests are growing on college campuses across the country, inspired by the read more... Advocacy