To some, the prospects for the proposed transatlantic and transpacific trade pacts appear to have dimmed. Harry Reid, who leads the Democratic majority in the Senate, announced his opposition to taking up proposed legislation to restore a “fast-track” process for congressional approval of such agreements. At a retreat last Friday, Democrats in the House of Representatives are reported to have expressed similar reservations. The previous legislation, which had been instrumental in almost every significant trade agreement signed by the US since 1974, expired six years ago and has not been replaced.
This has caused consternation among advocates of trade agreements. It should not. The fast track has become so congested with conditions and bureaucracy that it now offers few benefits over the conventional legislative process.
Fast-track negotiating authority was devised in the mid-1970s to help deal with the risk that the constitutional separation of powers would lead to stalemate in trade talks. Only the president can negotiate with foreign governments. But implementing an agreement involves passing laws, which only Congress has the power to do. The fast track was supposed to solve this. Congress would put forward a list of objectives and the president would pursue them, consulting lawmakers and business leaders along the way. Legislation to implement the resulting treaties would then be subject to a vote, with no possibility of amendment or filibuster. This ensured that the president could deliver on promises, providing the credibility needed to negotiate with foreign leaders.