It’s time to halt fast-track trade authority

Clearly, trade of U.S. agriculture products, which represents about 10 percent of total U.S. exports, has benefited farmers and ranchers. Our markets abroad have been so strong and demand for U.S. products has been so high, in fact, that since 1960, U.S. agricultural exports have been greater than U.S. agricultural imports, a claim that most other sectors of our economy can’t make.

 As a Washington rancher, it might be tempting to consider only the benefits to agriculture. Yet, as we approach another string of massive trade agreements, Congress is pushing to give fast-track authority to the president and forget the huge downside for the rest of the country if those agreements become law. I’m not just a rancher, I’m an American, and I have to say that, from my perspective, it seems that in the trade department, the U.S. is always coming out on the short end.

Fast-track allows the president to negotiate trade agreements, and submit them to Congress for an up-or-down vote; no amendments allowed.

Now the president is asking for, and Congress is preparing to grant, fast-track status for two enormous trade agreements: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

TPP is an agreement with 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Even a non-economist can understand that TPP will create zero jobs – according to the author of the very report used by the Obama administration to claim the trade deal would create 650,000 new jobs. 

  TTIP, an agreement with the European Union, is the other major trade deal facing the nation, and its job creation prospects will likely be as impressive as the TTP’s. Fast track is a formula for more of the same – bigger and deeper deficits – and in its rush to push through more and more trade, the fast-track might really take this nation off track.

 Our nation had a $471.5 billion trade deficit in 2013, and $505 billion in 2014. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the trade deficit represents a 3 percent drag on the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

In other words, if the trade deficit didn’t exist, our economy would be doing 3 percent better, generating good jobs for Americans and offering a future for our children.

That’s why, moving forward, the U.S. should only enter trade agreements with the goal of reducing the U.S. trade deficit while ensuring that our trading partners are keeping up with their end of the agreement and abiding by U.S. standards.

 Also, this nation should avoid trade agreements that will subvert the jurisdiction of our important and hard-fought domestic laws that protect workers, the environment and our children. How are U.S. producers and manufacturers supposed to fairly compete against their counterparts in other nations when those folks aren’t following the same set of rules that we are? That, in and of itself, is a formula for a trade deficit.

 There are some who will read this piece and call it anti-trade, which it is not. I believe in the power of consumers and their right to be able to buy what they want and to know where their food was produced. I also work as a professional baseball scout and have regular contact with Korean nationals, who prefer to eat Korean food while they are in the U.S. They should be able to do so, and that is why in this world of increased trade, Country-of Origin Labeling (COOL) is so important.

 COOL, which is supported by 90 percent of consumers, requires that retail cuts of beef and pork, and many fruits, nuts and vegetables be labeled. Amazingly, COOL is under attack by some of the same groups who are pushing for more and faster trade. They want to increase trade but don’t want consumers to know where the food is coming from? Clearly, COOL needs to stay on the books.

 Granting fast-track is a major mistake that Congress needs to avoid. When Congress grants fast-track, it all but gives away members’ constitutional authority and duty to negotiate trade agreements that actually benefit the nation and its citizens. Moving forward, if a trade agreement is good for this country, then it should be able to pass Congress on its own. It’s time to make fast-track trade a thing of the past.