Opinion Editorial

A new path on trade deals

Paralyzed by ideological divisions, Congress has done little to promote economic growth or reduce unemployment since Republicans took over the House in 2011. One exception has been the approval of free-trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that lower barriers in those countries to U.S. exports and services. Any further trade deals face a huge hurdle, however: The law setting the ground rules for negotiating and approving such agreements expired in 2007. A bipartisan proposal to update the law is pending in both chambers, and lawmakers should make it a top priority to put a version on President Obama's desk.

For much of the 20th century, Congress gave the president the green light to strike trade deals that reduced tariffs. In 1974, however, lawmakers passed the first in a series of temporary "fast track" laws requiring congressional approval of any trade treaty. This "trade promotion authority" legislation also required lawmakers to approve or reject such treaties without amendment. The division of labor has been clear ever since: The administration does the bargaining, but Congress ultimately gives the deal an up-or-down vote.

Now, a leading Senate Democrat and an influential Republican in each chamber have introduced bills to give Obama a new version of the trade promotion authority that expired in 2007. They've run into heavy flak, with critics arguing that requiring Congress to vote on a proposed treaty without changes would only make it easier for the White House to ram through bad trade deals. But killing "fast track" is akin to killing future treaties, which would be self-defeating. These bills give Congress the chance to set prerequisites and goals for trade deals — for example, by instructing the president to negotiate for particular ways to resolve trade disputes. They also dictate how transparent the negotiating process must be, who must be included in the consultations, and who will have access to the text of the proposed treaty.

With no current instructions from Congress, the Obama administration has been negotiating trade deals under the rules Congress set more than a decade ago. These include ambitious, broad and controversial treaties with major partners across the Pacific and the Atlantic. Because these negotiations take up new and complex issues, even critics of the deals ought to be pushing Congress to update the president's trade promotion authority, providing more transparency and more specific instructions on emerging issues such as state-sponsored businesses and intellectual property. The current proposals need work, but they're heading in the right direction. If Congress wants these treaties to be more to its liking, lawmakers need to stop dithering and give the president a new set of marching orders on trade.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • The real reason for Washington's derivatives gift to banks
    The real reason for Washington's derivatives gift to banks

    As we embark on the seventh year since the historic collapse of the Lehman Bros. investment bank, it's clear we haven't fixed what broke the economy in 2008. Big banks still control Congress. Workers remain acutely vulnerable to another financial crisis. But we can't blame only Wall Street...

  • Continue -- but gradually reduce -- federal risk in terrorism insurance
    Continue -- but gradually reduce -- federal risk in terrorism insurance

    The terrorists who turned the World Trade Center into rubble struck a devastating blow to the U.S. economy too, and few sectors felt it as acutely as the insurance industry. Afterward, insurers balked at providing any coverage for damage caused by further acts of terrorism, making it harder...

  • A tax system tilted toward the rich
    A tax system tilted toward the rich

    Congress managed to pass a tax bill in December — a great relief to tax professionals like myself. But what our legislators didn't do was address the fundamentally unfair way the United States taxes people who work for a living compared with people who live off of the earnings of their...

  • In spending-bill battle, Obama and banks prevail over Pelosi, Warren
    In spending-bill battle, Obama and banks prevail over Pelosi, Warren

    So much for the new populism.

  • Obama's myRA accounts come up short for savers
    Obama's myRA accounts come up short for savers

    President Obama's legacy will probably not include retirement savings accounts, but he did point the way to a promising option this year: a government-sponsored account, aimed at the millions of workers without access to an employer plan. As with so much else in his presidency, it's an...

  • That ugly spending bill? That's what compromise looks like
    That ugly spending bill? That's what compromise looks like

    The trillion-dollar spending bill that the House of Representatives passed last week had something for everyone to hate. But it was still a step, however awkward, toward making the United States governable again.

  • Empty threats vs. real immigration reform
    Empty threats vs. real immigration reform

    House Republicans once again find themselves choosing whether to govern or to make a point. Last year they embarked on a destined-to-fail effort to "defund Obamacare," leading to a 16-day government shutdown. Now, some Republicans want to "defund amnesty," a reference to President Obama's...

  • The new Rand Paul vs. the old Rand Paul
    The new Rand Paul vs. the old Rand Paul

    Rand Paul, the heretofore libertarian senator from Kentucky, gave a foreign policy speech to Republican grandees in New York last week with a clear message: I'm not an isolationist like my dad.

Comments
Loading