The Nov. 7 editorial in favor of granting President Obama new trade powers, "Speeding up a trade deal," assumed the task would be easier with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress. Not so. Many Republicans, especially in the House, where the real trade action is, question the constitutionality of fast-track trade authority and the wisdom of giving the president even freer rein.
Congressional Democrats would not give their own president new trade authority. Are the Republicans more likely to do so, especially if cut out by executive action on immigration and other critical issues by a president who ignores election results? Polling shows Republican voters are more averse to free-trade agreements than Democrats. New political realities will only increase the intransigence of our Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiating partners, especially Japan.
With Mr. Obama now a lame duck, a particularly perverse outcome is likely: The TPP countries will not compromise on the most contentious issues, knowing Mr. Obama will cave to achieve a legacy deal. Republicans are not so devoid of political acumen as to hand Mr. Obama a victory on a dubious trade deal and alienate their base in key 2016 industrial states.
Kevin L. Kearns, Washington
The writer is president of the U.S. Business and Industry Council.
●
Reviving the old fast-track bill would grease the skids for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and a deal with Europe. But these deals are not so much about trade as they are about deregulation. Under the TPP and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, foreign investors could use biased international tribunals to sue governments and seek unlimited damages to cover the cost of complying with environmental and other regulations. Such suits could chill sensible environmental and health regulations.
To prevent the negotiation of such misguided trade deals, the fast-track model should be revamped: First, a broadly representative congressional group must be able to approve negotiating partners, and Congress must be able to veto trade talks with some countries. Second, Congress must be able to certify that its objectives have been met before negotiations are concluded. Finally, we must end the disgraceful secrecy of U.S. trade negotiations.
Erich Pica, Washington
The writer is president of Friends of the Earth U.S.