|
Written by
|
|
Wednesday, 14 January 2009 12:50 |
It doesn’t matter whether you call it ‘fast track’, ‘trade promotion authority’ or by the acronym TPA. In his October 3 column, TATT Chairman Dean Kleckner said perhaps it should be ‘Free Trade Fair Vote’ or FTFV just to give it a better name. Regardless, over recent years TATT has advocated Congress having the final say in an up-or-down vote on trade deals after negotiated by the administration. Evidently, outgoing USTR Susan Schwab agrees because in her final news conference she said it’s important that Congress give President-Elect Obama ‘fast track’ authority.
That was reported in a news report ‘USTR: Don’t hinder trade’ from The Journal of Commerce Online (Jan. 14, 2009) from coverage of Schwab’s final new conference before departing next week when the Obama administration assumes office. Schwab is right, during his administration Mr. Obama should have TPA. It doesn’t matter which political party the president comes from nor which party has control of the U.S. House and/or U.S. Senate.
The same column by Kleckner referenced above points out some reasons for TPA:
“In its essentials, TPA allows potential trade deals to have up-or-down votes before Congress. As a practical matter, our government can’t negotiate any deals to remove foreign tariffs without it… that way, important economic policies can receive the debate and deliberation they need without as much of the partisan bickering and legislative trickery… Congress would have the authority to reject a proposed trade agreement. That’s important, because Congress has the right to have a voice in forming U.S. trade policy…Yet politicians shouldn’t be able to dodge their legislative responsibilities. They should have to vote yes or no. We expect our leaders to make tough choices rather than duck for cover. [TPA] enables them to do the former; its absence guarantees the latter.”
|
.png)
Follow us on Twitter