Obama hopes to enlist GOP in push for trade pact, despite Democratic resistance

[Jim Lane]

94. You emphasize public review but you're OK with fast track, which drastically curtails that review.

Unlike some progressives, I'm not upset about the no-amendments aspect of fast track. A multilateral agreement has to be negotiated once, then approved or rejected by each country (unless rejections lead to a multilateral renegotiation). If the U.S. (through Congressional action) could amend the deal, then each other country could do so as well, and each amendment anywhere would nullify all prior approvals.

The real drawback of fast track is the "fast" part. It's not realistic to say that any problems in the final deal can be brought out in the public discussion when that discussion would be so constricted. Let's suppose that Obama gets the fast-track authority that he's asked for. The actual deal (which you insist we wait for) is then finally made public for the first time and Obama asks for its approval. Here's the process:

If the President transmits a fast track trade agreement to Congress, then the majority leaders of the House and Senate or their designees must introduce the implementing bill submitted by the President on the first day on which their House is in session. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(c)(1).) Senators and Representatives may not amend the President’s bill, either in committee or in the Senate or House. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(d).) The committees to which the bill has been referred have 45 days after its introduction to report the bill, or be automatically discharged, and each House must vote within 15 days after the bill is reported or discharged. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(1).)

In the likely case that the bill is a revenue bill (as tariffs are revenues), the bill must originate in the House (see U.S. Const., art I, sec. 7), and after the Senate received the House-passed bill, the Finance Committee would have another 15 days to report the bill or be discharged, and then the Senate would have another 15 days to pass the bill. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(2).) On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(f)-(g).) Thus the entire Congressional consideration could take no longer than 90 days.

(Source: the "Procedure" section of the Wikipedia article on Fast track)

One thing we do already know for sure is that this will be a huge and complicated proposal, with ramifications in many areas. Understanding those ramifications could not be achieved within the deadlines of fast track. (At least, it couldn't be achieved by Congress, by NGOs, or by the public. Big-business interests have been involved in the negotiations and already know what's in it, while we've been shut out, as Senator Ron Wyden has pointed out.)

I've never seen any cogent argument for why fast track is necessary -- other than the obvious one that, if there's a full and fair opportunity for Congress and the public to analyze the proposal, there's a greater chance it will be rejected. I hope you agree with me that that, at least, is an illegitimate argument.

Yes, I've been a union member, but a collective bargaining agreement isn't comparable. I've never seen one that was anywhere near as long as the TPP. Furthermore, a CBA is generally just a markup of the previous deal. The union members have to evaluate a few changes, and those few relate to a subject they know personally.

You express confidence in Krugman. He also hasn't seen the final agreement. (Why are all objections waved away as based merely on leaked proposals, but any comment in support is given full credence?) More important is that he's an economist. His analysis is of the economic impact but there are many other considerations. As a lawyer (am I right that you're one, too?), I know more about law than Krugman does. Other TPP critics also know more their areas of expertise than Krugman does -- such as the AFL-CIO on labor issues, the Electronic Frontier Foundation on internet freedom, and the Sierra Club on the environment. I think Krugman's argument was that trade agreements don't have a big macroeconomic impact (unemployment rate, trade deficit, etc.). That may be true but macroeconomics isn't everything. Suppose a state or local government bans fracking but then can't enforce that ban against a foreign corporation. Maybe the fracking employment just replaces conventional oil-drilling employment elsewhere. OK, so the macroeconomic impact is negligible, but there are now some people who can set their drinking water on fire. A few of us crackpot leaflover environmentalists think that's a big concern.