(authored by Hayoon Jung, my summer law clerk)
On May 22, 2015 the U.S. Congress gave President Obama
expanded trade negotiation powers by passing the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA,
19 U.S.C.A. § 3801-3813). The TPA shortens the time a
trade agreement implementing bill stays in Congress by restricting Congressional
power to amend the submitted bill. TPA requires the President to hear Congress’
opinion in the course of trade negotiations to assure the trade agreement
obtains its goal.
To maintain its Constitutional power in U.S. commerce, Congress
requires the President to hear its opinion in the course of trade negotiations
and delineated trade objectives, such as expanded market opportunities.
Moreover, TPA restricts the implementing bill to consist only of provisions
that approve the trade agreement and administrative
action necessary to implement it. Also, the bill should include “only such provisions as are strictly necessary or appropriate”
(italics added). Compared to the 2002 TPA, which did not contain such
italicized words, this more stringent standard represents a Congressional
intent to interpret the law narrowly.
The Process
In this expedited process, an implementing bill submitted by
the President is automatically introduced in both houses concurrently, unlike
in the regular legislative process. Then, the appropriate committee of each Chamber
examines the bill. The debate is limited to 20 hours, whereas there is no limit
in the regular process. Then the bill goes to the floor in each Chamber for the members
to vote. Each Chamber has to either approve it
fully or deny the bill without amendments. Timely floor consideration, limited
debate time, and a prohibition on amendments are the three elements that allow the
expedited process.
Pros and Cons
The advocates say TPA is neither giving the President a new power, nor
depriving the Congress of its legislative power, because Congress still
participates in drafting and implementing a bill and reserves the right to deny
the bill as in the regular process (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43491.pdf)
Furthermore, the TPA will promote the U.S. economy by
inducing more trade agreements. The reduced cost of re-negotiation will enable other
countries to more easily enter into, and finalize trade agreements with the
U.S. New agreements will lower trade barriers, thus increasing the volume of
international commerce, in turn entailing a higher GDP, spurring job growth.
In contrast, opponents of the TPA express
concerns about the seemingly diminished Congressional power in legislating laws
(http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/08/uaw-voices-its-opposition-to-trade-promotion-authority). Likewise, they think TPA is unnecessary
because both the House and the Senate are aware of the necessity of trade
agreements and its reciprocity (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/ftb56.pdf
They also argue that the individual industries and the
workers will be the ones bearing the cost of the lower trade barriers, because
they are forced cut the cost to remain competitive in the market (AFL-CIO, http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/08/uaw-voices-its-opposition-to-trade-promotion-authority).
What do you think? Let us know by sharing your comments below!
