| 3.23.22

Should Congress Approve the ‘Fast-Track’ for Free Trade Agreements (Like TPP)? (Senate Version) (S. 995)

Do you support or oppose this bill?

What is S. 995?

(Updated May 25, 2020)

The measure would let the President to submit free trade agreements to Congress for straight approvals or rejections. Congress would be able to up or down vote an agreement, but they could not add in their own amendments. You may have been hearing about it in the news — because it's considered the missing piece to a U.S. entry into the 12-country trade deal, aka, the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact.

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 these overall trade objectives:

To gain more open, equitable, and reciprocal market access.
Lowering or eliminating barriers directly related to trade and investment that have decreased opportunities for U.S. exports in the past.
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.
Maintaining the domestic environmental and labor standards of agreement partners.
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.

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.

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, their employees, Congress, the U.S. and global economy, and the President.

Cost of S. 995

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable. However, a CBO analysis of the House version of this bill found that it would cost less than $500,000 over the 2015-2025 period to implement.

Additional Info

In-Depth:

This bill was introduced with bipartisan support by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced the companion bill into the House. All three hailed the potential for job creation and economic growth that fast-tracked free trade agreements would facilitate. They also gushed over the improved oversight features.

President Obama has expressed his support for the bipartisan proposal, 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. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) attached an amendment addressing the currency concerns which passed the Senate Finance Committee, as the fast-track bill itself passed on a 20-6 vote. 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.”

Other Democrats like Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) have proposed alternatives that are favored by unions, but Levin’s amendment did not receive a vote in the House Ways and Means Committee while the original bill passed on a 25-13 vote.

Other provisions of the bill include:

An outline for specific industry-related trade objectives for goods, services, agriculture, foreign investment, intellectual property, and digital trade. Goals would also be outlines for reducing regulatory barriers to trade and respecting the environment and workers’ rights, while avoiding currency manipulation.

Congress would be able to appoint a designated congressional adviser for trade policy and negotiations. That adviser would consult with the U.S. Trade Representative negotiating an agreement throughout the process before signing off on an agreement. Congressional advisory groups would also be created (in both chambers) to advise the U.S. Trade Representative on negotiating strategies and positions for trade agreements.

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.