For this reason, the House and Senate ought to pass the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014, which would clarify the process: The White House would retain the authority to negotiate trade treaties, and Congress would promise a timely up-or-down vote. Without this bill, it would be difficult to make progress on any free trade agreement, let alone the two massive ones currently under discussion: The Trans-Pacific Partnership, which encompasses 12 countries, including Singapore and Vietnam, and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union.
Both deals have the potential to create economic growth here and across the world, but there will, inevitably, be some unfortunate tradeoffs. Still, members of Congress ought to wait and vote their conscience on the merits of the two treaties rather than try to abort the talks by denying the president the power to effectively negotiate on behalf of the United States.
Labor and environmental activists, alongside some liberal Democrats and Tea Party Republicans, have claimed that giving the president this authority amounts to an abdication of Congress’s responsibilities. These claims are disingenuous. Congress has given presidents the power to negotiate “fast track” trade deals for more than 40 years. Activists also complain about the secrecy of trade talks. That’s an understandable concern. But almost all treaties are negotiated behind closed doors. In fact, the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act would provide greater transparency and opportunity for congressional and public input than currently exists.
In reality, those who oppose granting the president the authority to negotiate trade deals deeply oppose the treaties themselves. They have some grounds for wariness. Twenty years after the North American Free Trade Agreement, research on its effects suggests that the treaty didn’t give as big an economic boost as many experts expected. The benefits in the form of cheaper goods from overseas don’t always make up for the wages that are lost when unskilled jobs go overseas. Some studies suggest that free trade treaties increase income inequality.
Even free trade’s biggest advocates acknowledge that certain pockets of society suffer, even as they insist that the agreements benefit the economy as a whole. In the past, trade agreements have been paired with mitigation packages meant to help unskilled workers by retraining them. But research suggests that this assistance has been woefully ineffective.
For all these reasons, it’s important to have a national debate about how to compensate those in our society who are disadvantaged by free trade agreements, and whether the overall benefits of these treaties outweigh the costs. Opponents of these treaties would do well to focus the public’s attention on these very real questions.
And supporters, including the Obama administration, should seek the advice of both the would-be beneficiaries of the deals and their potential detractors. The frequently heard complaint that the government does more to represent the interests of corporations than ordinary citizens is a valid one, but it doesn’t fully comport with the reality of the ongoing negotiations. The administration has advisory panels consisting of both businesses and advocates for consumers and labor groups, though it remains to be seen whose views will be most reflected in the final agreement. Ultimately Congress will decide, with the full and open input of interests on all sides, whether the negotiators struck the right balance.