Lawmakers Anxious for Trade Promotion Authority, Though Many Questions Remain

There is clearly a desire for TPA within relevant House and Senate committees and there have been discussions between Congress and the White House on TPA, said Jeffrey Schott, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. TPA may also be more palatable this year since October’s Trans-Pacific Partnership deadline, when negotiators want the deal to be finalized, is fast approaching. As results of that deal become tangible, “it is easier for a member of Congress to see the value of this legislation,” Schott said. Undoubtedly there will be political complications -- some germane, some not -- tied up in TPA, Schott said. But that doesn’t mean renewal is impossible. “There has to be some care in how the legislation is constructed,” he said. “So you don’t inadvertently create unnecessary political roadblocks.”

President Obama named TPA in his 2013 Trade Agenda but many legislators want the President -- historically the initiator of TPA renewal -- to do more. During a March 19 Senate Finance Committee hearing on the President’s trade agenda, Ranking Member Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he offered to begin TPA negotiations a year ago, after then-USTR Ron Kirk testified he would engage with Congress to secure the authority (here). “Despite my offer … no steps have been taken by this administration to engage Congress on TPA.” President Obama’s mention of TPA in his agenda is a “sign of progress,” Hatch said, “but we have already wasted four years. TPA could have been done a long time ago. We can’t afford to waste any more time.” Acting USTR Demetrios Marantis made only brief mention of TPA in his written testimony at the hearing, saying he looked forward to beginning work with Congress on the issue (here).

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., also stressed TPA’s importance at the hearing, calling it a “key negotiating tool” that will help conclude trade agreements. But Baucus also said a new TPA should reflect new realities, America’s “new set of economic priorities and challenges.” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., also recently pushed for action (see 13030410). "The President should “demonstrate his commitment to a vigorous and productive trade policy … by immediately beginning discussions with Congress on renewing Trade Promotion Authority,” Camp said.

But if TPA doesn’t appear within the next couple months, it does not bode well for its future, said Daniel Ikenson, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. Ikenson said President Obama hasn’t pressed more for TPA because “I just don’t think that he is yet willing to say that he’s an advocate for trade liberalization.” He said the current TPA debate as it relates to TPP passage is less partisan -- because the U.S. already has free trade agreements with many of the negotiating countries -- but more regional, as legislators try to protect interests in their districts. Japan’s recent entry into TPP talks, for example, sparked concern from Michigan lawmakers about restrictive auto import regulations (see: 13031532). It won’t take too much to throw TPA off track, Ikenson said.

The political realities of today are different than during TPAs of the past, according to Mac Destler, professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and author of the book American Trade Politics. “[TPA] worked very well when there was a general bipartisan consensus on trade agreements,” said Destler. That’s not true today, he said, citing industry-specific protectionists and a broad movement of globalization skeptics concerned about trade’s detrimental effect on labor and the environment. Democrats defeated TPA renewal in President Bill Clinton’s administration, over concerns about such costs. President George W. Bush moved TPA passage through the House on the slimmest of party-line votes, 215-214.

Still, many questions remain. Having TPA would probably boost leverage for TPP negotiators, Destler said, but “suppose this is a hotly contested issue. Suppose there is a new trade representative. Do [they] want to spend a year down on Capitol Hill massaging people to get TPA passed? Or do [they] want to get these negotiations done?” Congress and the administration will also have to consider the scope of TPA: Should it be a generic authority for a specific length of time, as in previous TPA renewals? Should Congress grant narrow authority for only one trade agreement? There are lots of “strategic and tactical decisions” to be made, Destler said. And he doesn’t see them being made soon. “If you forced me to the wall and said ‘You have to choose,’ I’d say they’re going to kick the can down the road.”

Congressional Quid Pro Quo

TPA is a quid pro quo between the legislature and executive: Congress agrees to suspend normal legislative procedure for trade bills, offering no amendments, limiting debate and making a simple up-or-down vote. In return, the President consults with Congress to craft initial negotiating objectives and agrees to periodically notify Congress about the agreement. If the objectives are not part of the final deal, or if Congress is dissatisfied with how the President conducts the negotiation, Congress has the power to deny TPA.

TPA gives the negotiating partners assurance that Congress will vote on the agreed-upon deal, said Destler. It is a partial yield of Congressional power, Destler said, but Congress does get to craft trade objectives and has the final say on any agreement. Still, some claim TPA cedes too much power to the executive. “Fast Track’s structure allows executive-branch negotiators enormous discretion regarding Congress’ negotiating objectives,” wrote Lori Wallach and Todd Tucker of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen in their 2009 book on TPA (here). They argue for a change in the structure of TPA that gives Congress a more prominent role in negotiations.

Whatever the structure of TPA, renewing it won’t be easy. TPA expired in 2007, though it was used to pass implementing legislation for the Panama and South Korea trade agreements. The authority has been around for 30 years, and its passage has grown increasingly contentious. Because TPA gives Congress power to craft trade objectives, a vote on the authority is more than just a vote on adopting procedure. It is a vote on what U.S. trade objectives should be, and therefore “among the most critical trade votes Congress considers,” said a 2012 Congressional Research Service report on TPA (here). -- Jessica Arriens