Without Fast Track, the U.S. Lags

This week, President Clinton is expected to ask Congress for “fast track” authority for negotiating and approving trade agreements.

“Fast track” is shorthand to describe the cooperative, bipartisan process that Congress and the executive branch have used since the 1970s to allow our government of separated powers to obtain the best trade agreements possible.

Under these procedures, Congress, which is empowered by the Constitution to regulate commerce, may set objectives for the administration to seek in trade negotiations and require the administration to consult closely with it during the course of the negotiations. In return, Congress agrees to approve or reject--but not amend--the trade agreement that the administration presents.

The assurance that Congress will not amend the agreement is based on a bipartisan recognition that our trade team could not obtain good trade deals if our trading partners expected there would be a second negotiation with Congress. Inevitably, they would hold back things we wanted for the subsequent negotiation.

Trade agreements typically cover hundreds of issues. Each negotiator looks at how the whole agreement affects his or her nation. If only one-third of the 535 members of Congress sought just one change each in an agreement, some 178 revisions would be required, our trading partners would reassess their commitments and the agreement inevitably would unravel.

While fast track authority is unique to trade policy in congressional-executive branch relations, it is similar to negotiating procedures used elsewhere in our economy. In labor negotiations, for example, the union leadership consults with its membership on negotiating objectives, bargains with management and brings home a deal for an up-or-down vote by the membership.

Since 1994, the United States has been without fast track authority because of a disagreement about trade policy here at home. Some in Congress have insisted that our trade agreements focus on trade and economic issues, while others have insisted that they cover labor standards and environmental issues as well.

Reportedly, the administration has worked out these differences, and it is way past due. While we have dawdled these past three years, others have moved forward without us on a range of trade issues.

In this hemisphere alone, Chile has joined Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay in a free trade agreement, creating a market of 210 million consumers with combined gross domestic products of roughly $1 trillion. Now those nations are negotiating with the European Union.

The Canadians have a free trade agreement with Chile and already ship wheat to Chile on better terms than U.S. farmers enjoy. And Caterpillar is forced by economics to export its heavy equipment to Chile from Brazil rather than from the United States because we are not part of the agreements in South America to eliminate tariffs.

We need to be part of the opening of markets all around the world to take advantage of the explosion occurring in world commerce. In the past decade, world merchandise trade soared from less than $2 trillion to more than $5 trillion.

The United States is inextricably linked to the global economy, which contributes in a major way to our economic well-being. Today our trade and investment earnings and payments account for about one-third of our $7-trillion economy. Last year we exported almost $3,100 for every man, woman and child in our country.

Our imports are crucial as well, for we need some foreign goods, like oil, as well as certain goods and technologies to keep our economic engine running at full speed. Competition makes us better in every sector and encourages innovation and technological development.

Because our barriers to trade and investment generally are lower than those in most other countries, it is in our interest to persuade other nations to lower their barriers. This is particularly true with respect to nations in Asia and Latin America, the two fastest-growing regions of the world. As they remove their trade restrictions, we gain disproportionately in terms of new opportunities.

Fast track is not a partisan issue. It is a national issue. The Clinton administration should make the case for fast track now, and Congress should vote in favor before this session ends.