| |
Global Issues >> International Trade
International Trade
Low Support for Trade
Promotion Authority ("Fast Track")
However it is described, the public shows low levels of support
for the idea of giving the president the power to negotiate
trade agreements that cannot be revised by Congress, but can
only be approved on an up-down vote. This is consistent with
the public’s lack of eagerness to promote the growth
and a readiness to forgo the rapid growth of trade in favor
of other concerns.
In the most recent poll conducted in May 2002 by Investors
Business Daily/TIPP, a plurality showed opposition to grant
the president such authority. Respondents were asked if the
President should be given “special authority to negotiate
free trade agreements, with a straight Yes or No vote from
Congress to approve or disapprove trade agreements in their
entirety.” A plurality of 49% believed the President
“should not be given” this authority, while 42%
believed he “should be given” this authority,
and 9% are not sure. [1]
However, in another poll by EPIC-MRA in October 2001 that
the president would consult with Congress, a plurality favored
giving the authority. When it was specified that “This
authority would allow the President to negotiate trade agreements
in consultation with Congress (emphasis added), 46% favored
“having Congress act to grant a President authority
to negotiate new free trade agreements.” Thirty-seven
percent opposed giving trade promotion authority to the President
and 17% were undecided or did not know. [1a]
Thus, a comparison of the findings of these two polls suggests
that a plurality of respondents favor giving the President
the authority to negotiate trade with special authority if
Congress is given a role. (Note: In actuality the president
is required to consult several committees with jurisdiction
over free trade and the congressional oversight committee
established by the act. The content of those negotiations,
however, is neither specified nor formalized.)
In the same EPIC-MRA poll, respondents were also asked how
much they knew about “trade promotion authority.”
Only 14% knew “a lot” or “some.” Not
surprisingly, 56% knew “nothing at all” and 25%
knew “only a little.” [1b]
Polls taken through the year 2000 used the term “fast
track” to describe trade promotion authority. It engendered
little support, perhaps because "fast track" sounds
as if the purpose is to have trade move forward rapidly, unburdened
by other considerations - something respondents clearly opposed
in other questions. Perhaps as a result, the Bush Administration
decided to forgo "fast track" and employ the term
"trade promotion authority".
The form of the question that engendered the highest level
of support was one that put fast track in historical context
and implied it was business as usual. Nonetheless, support
dropped from a high of 53% in 1998 to just 40% in May 2000.
It read:
“Presidents since 1974 have had trade negotiating
authority known as "fast track", which means the
trade agreements the President negotiated are considered in
Congress within 90 days and put to a simple yes or no vote,
without any additions that could upset the agreement. The
authority to do this expired in 1994, and President Clinton
no longer has such authority. Do you strongly support renewing
President Clinton's fast track trade authority, somewhat support,
somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose it?”
| Date |
Organization |
Support |
Oppose |
DK/Ref |
| May 00 |
Epic-MRA |
40 |
39 |
21 |
| Oct 99 |
PIPA |
43 |
55 |
2 |
| May 99 |
Epic-MRA |
48 |
41 |
11 |
| May 98 |
Epic-MRA |
53 |
39 |
2 |
| Aug 97 |
Mark Penn |
48 |
41 |
11 |
The lack of support for fast track is striking, particularly
since this question, which puts fast track in historical context
and implies that it is business as usual, has done somewhat
better than other questions on the issue.
Another question described the fast track legislation but
did not put it in a historical context, perhaps giving respondents
the impression that it would give the President new, unprecedented
powers:
"As you may know, President Clinton has asked
Congress to give him 'fast track' authority to negotiate more
free trade agreements. The 'fast track' authority would mean
that once the negotiations are completed, Congress would take
an up-or-down vote on an agreement as a whole, but could not
vote to make any amendments or changes in an agreement. Do
you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly
oppose having Congress grant the President 'fast track' authority
to negotiate new free trade agreements?"
In the October 1999 PIPA poll, only 32% said they favored
Congress granting the President such authority, while 65%
were opposed. This is consistent with most other polls that
used the same or similar questions in the late 1990's. When
NBC News/Wall Street Journal asked the same question in October
1997, 35% supported the idea and 56% opposed it. In August
1998, Market Strategies found 36% in favor of fast track,
with 58% opposed. That same month, in a poll by President
Clinton's pollsters, Penn and Schoen, 38% said the president
"should be given fast track negotiating authority,"
but 53% opposed the idea. Over the last several years, questions
of this type have revealed support for fast track extension
ranging from a low of 27% to a high of 44%; during that time,
it never reach plurality or majority support. [2]
|
|
Report Contents
|