Fast Track
Congress is now debating
whether to give President Clinton "fast track" authority to negotiate trade
agreements with foreign countries. Most of the opposition comes from the
president's own party, though some Republicans are also opposed (and others
from both parties accuse Clinton of not pushing hard enough for it). What is
fast track and why is it so contentious?
After the
president signs a trade agreement with a foreign government--reducing or
eliminating barriers to free trade such as tariffs, import quotas, and
subsidies for domestic products--the agreement must be approved by a majority
of both houses of Congress. Fast track is a congressional procedure limiting
debate over these agreements. When the president invokes fast track,
Congress must vote yes or no within 60 days, and no amendments are allowed.
Fast track is intended to thwart filibusters and to prevent
members of Congress from adding special protections for businesses in their
districts. The rationale for fast track is that trade agreements are
different from ordinary legislation : They are negotiated with other
countries. If Congress makes changes, the whole agreement must be renegotiated.
Furthermore, negotiations involve swapping concessions with the other side.
Other countries will not make the necessary concessions in the first place if
U.S. concessions can be undone.
No other
country gives its chief executive a power similar to fast track. But few other
countries have a legislative branch so independent of the executive branch.
Fast track exists only for trade --not for arms-control treaties or other
multilateral agreements. These other agreements, like the recent Chemical
Weapons Convention, are often subjected to prolonged debate and can be altered
drastically by Congress. Formal treaties can only be approved by a two-thirds
vote of the Senate.
Before fast track's inception in 1974, the
president had even broader authority . Regretting the notorious
Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, in 1934 Congress granted the president the power
to reduce tariffs and implement multilateral trade agreements without its
approval. Up until the mid-1960s, presidents negotiated many bilateral tariff
reductions, attracting little attention. However, after Lyndon Johnson revoked
a series of popular export subsidies, Congress resumed its complaints about the
president's powers. Anticipating further conflicts, President Nixon's
congressional allies inserted fast track into a relatively obscure section of
an uncontroversial 1974 trade bill.
For two
decades, Congress repeatedly voted to renew fast track, and by large margins.
But in 1994, fearing a contentious debate about fast-track renewal so soon
after the NAFTA battle, President Clinton allowed fast track to expire .
Now that Clinton is keen on negotiating a free-trade agreement with Chile and
other Latin American countries, he has requested that fast track be granted for
the duration of his term.
Presidents have only invoked fast track on a handful of
occasions, and each time the agreement it covered was approved. Ronald Reagan
used fast track to get congressional approval of tariff-reduction agreements
with Israel and Canada. In 1979 and 1994 it was used for major multilateral
trade agreements. And in 1993 it was used to pass NAFTA .
Opponents
say that with fast track, Congress is abandoning its responsibilities under the
Constitution and giving the president too much power . They also say that
the process of hashing out agreements tends to be secretive --without
public hearings or any opportunity for public input. But despite fast track,
Congress usually plays a major role in shaping trade agreements. NAFTA is the
classic example. Congressional Democrats refused to support the agreement until
the president negotiated two side agreements to make Mexico adhere to stricter
labor and environmental standards. According to the 1974 legislation, if the
president doesn't keep Congress up to speed on negotiations, Congress can
revoke fast track. Other provisions in the original legislation give Congress
an opportunity to suspend fast track.
The current fast-track debate will be
contentious. Labor and environmental groups have announced that they
will use the occasion as a referendum on all free-trade accords. Attempts at
compromise--amendments guaranteeing that future agreements will include
provisions protecting the environment and workers' rights--have failed to
placate these groups. Earlier this month, only four out of 16 Democrats on the
House Ways and Means Committee voted in favor of the legislation. The chairman
of the committee, Bill Archer, R-Texas, says that he might delay introducing
the bill before the full House until next year, rather than risk defeat.
