Fast Track Legislation And Other Administration Trade Proposals

Fast track was conceived as a mundane procedural mechanism to enhance the president's credibility in negotiating complex multilateral trade agreements by streamlining the congressional approval process into an up-or-down vote in return for enhanced congressional oversight. It allows the President to negotiate international trade agreements knowing that Congress will provide a timely vote on the agreement without amendments. Given its seminal importance to the trade debate, however, fast track has acquired greater significance and controversy. This incisive text examines whether fast track is an evolutionary advancement in U.S. international economic agreements or an end-run around the constitutional treaty provision; whether it is a reflection of the shared constitutional powers of Congress and the President in the area of foreign affairs or an unconstitutional abdication of Congress’s power to regulate foreign commerce and its ability to set its own procedural rules; whether fast track is needed to put the United States on even footing with other nations that have efficient international agreement approval mechanisms or a unique U.S. ratification short-cut not found elsewhere; whether there is a better way for the United States to approve and implement trade agreements; whether the arguments of the left and right on fast track need a new focus; and whether there is a role for the states to play in U.S. trade policy formation. Fast Track argues that the time has come for the United States to end its perennial debate over the process by which we approve international trade agreements – i.e., whether to resort to fast track or not – and begin a debate on how best to prepare American citizens to compete in a globalized world. There are signs that the United States is not ready and may even be falling behind. Without question, this book can help formalize a requisite national strategy. Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint.

President Clinton has asked Congress for "fast track" authority for implementing future trade agreements; this authority would limit congressional debate and prevent amendments to implementing legislation. Delays in completing this proposal were attributed to difficulties in reconciling conflicting pressures over environment and labor concerns. The President's proposal contains references to environmental concerns, but various interests are likely to seek clarification on these points. On October 1, 1997, the Senate Finance Committee marked up and approved its version of fast-track legislation. For a discussion of this and other trade legislation, see CRS Issue Brief 97016, Trade Agreements: Renewing the Negotiating and Fast Track Implementing Authority. (See Endnote 1.) On September 16, 1997, President Clinton submitted to Congress the proposed Export Expansion and Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1997, legislation to renew the ''fast track'' authority for implementing future trade agreements. Fast track procedures provide for limited debate and no amendments to implementing legislation. There are expectations that the United States will soon begin negotiating expansion of free trade with Chile and other countries in the Western Hemisphere.

President Clinton has asked Congress for "fast track" authority for implementing future trade agreements; this authority would limit congressional debate and prevent amendments to implementing legislation. Delays in completing this proposal were attributed to difficulties in reconciling conflicting pressures over environment and labor concerns. The President's proposal contains references to environmental concerns, but various interests are likely to seek clarification on these points.