������Ƶ

After a spate of between U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and President Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate has granted the president fast-track authority to complete the full draft of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Last Thursday, the Senate mustered 62 votes to end fast-track debate, and the next day completed passage of the negotiating request.

Civil Beat argued for this authority, and we see ������岹��’s vote as an important step forward. Though the conflict over fast track was hard fought and sometimes shrill, it promises to be nothing compared to the battle to come, when the complete trade deal is made public later this year.

And that’s exactly, precisely as it should be.

The Obama administration argued forcefully for fast track, noting the extraordinary difficulties in getting 12 nations to individually ratify a trade deal. Fast-track authority means Congress, like legislative bodies in the other nations, will only be able to vote the deal up or down, not amend it. Allowing amendments in Washington’s hyper partisan environment would have only meant ensnaring TPP in the same endless loop of bickering that holds too many other worthy pieces of legislation hostage and essentially writing off any chance of a deal that would eliminate trade barriers among nations accounting for about 40 percent of the world’s economy.

But in exchange for getting the Senate to agree to a thumbs up/thumbs down vote, the administration must expect an extraordinarily high level of scrutiny. That unavoidably means that issues that might have been resolvable in a normal legislative process could now be enough to deep-six a bill that has been more than a decade in the making. And, of course, there is still the matter of House’s upcoming decision on fast track, which while once uncertain is being increasingly described as likely in the wake of the Senate vote.

It’s a high-stakes proposition — one with significant ramifications for Hawaii and the rest of the nation. This state’s exports amounted to $1.5 billion in 2014 and supported 3,000 jobs across the state. TPP’s 12 countries comprise 60 percent of Hawaii’s top export markets and its biggest trade partners — Australia, Singapore, Canada and New Zealand. Removing tariffs in those nations as well as in such countries as Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam could be a boon for the Aloha State, helping to diversify an economy that relies too heavily on tourism.

Nationwide, the export economy amounted to $2.35 trillion last year. Because TPP talks include several of our most significant trade partners as well as rapidly growing markets — most notably, Peru and Vietnam — most economists believe it would provide a modest ongoing boost to the U.S. economy.

Hawaii’s congressional delegation vocally opposed fast-track authority — most notably, Sen. Brian Schatz — and while we disagreed with their concerns as reasons for blocking the negotiating measure, those arguments must now be front and center as we evaluate the full trade accord later this year.

Dispute settlement concerns, labor protection issues

Chief among them are questions over the inclusion of an “investor-state dispute settlement,” or ISDS provision, in TPP.  ISDS clauses in other trade agreements have allowed for establishment of a legal tribunal in which investors may sue participating countries over laws or rules affecting their businesses. Such forums are typically beyond the court systems of trade agreement nations, their decisions not able to be appealed.

As Schatz pointed out last week in a , nearly 600 ISDS cases have been filed to date, and of the 274 that have been concluded, nearly 60 percent have been resolved in favor of the investor. In those cases, ISDS arbitrators may order the government in question to pay the investor. This creates reasonable concerns that U.S. taxpayers could be left footing the bill for judgments we would have no right to question.

How big of an issue might this be? The largest ISDS judgment thus far exceeded $2 billion. Such cases can be costly to defend and take years to reach conclusion. Governments sometimes opt to change laws as part of settlements, giving foreign investors an inappropriately outsized role in dictating the sovereign affairs of countries within the trade agreement.

President Obama has called concerns over ISDS mistaken and based on far-fetched hypotheticals. He rightly points to the fact that despite its participation in 50 trade accords, the United States has never been successfully sued under an ISDS provision. Still, it will be up to Congress to judge any ISDS provision on its merits and determine whether it presents a real and present danger to U.S. taxpayers.

Another major concern is how strong the trade deal’s protections will be for workers. There is a wide disparity of labor practices between the 12 TPP nations, with the United States, Australia, Canada and Japan on one end and Vietnam, Malaysia and Peru on the other.

U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez has indicated that ensuring workplace health and safety, acceptable work conditions and freedom of association will be requirements for participating in TPP. That’s not only essential for the protection of workers in countries where they’ve too often been exploited, but to prevent U.S. jobs from being outsourced to environments where labor can be had for a fraction of its domestic price.

Once negotiators complete their work, the document will be released publicly 60 days before the president signs it and sends it to Congress. There will be ample opportunity to thoughtfully consider the deal’s provisions.

Such outsourcing was a particularly pernicious effect of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement); as with ISDS concerns, many critics are convinced that the United States will repeat the sins of the past, despite the president’s assurances that they’ll be pleased with what they see in the final trade deal.

Once negotiators complete their work on TPP, the document will be released publicly 60 days before the president signs it and sends it to Congress. There, it will be on the House and Senate’s timetable, meaning that there will be ample opportunity to thoughtfully consider the deal’s provisions. If some prove too risky or damaging to U.S. interests, Congress would be well within its rights to demand changes or walk away from the deal, despite estimates by the administration that TPP will add $123 billion in annual U.S. exports and about $77 billion more in economic growth.

It’s important to note, however, that TPP is about more than economic growth, labor protection and corporate interests. There’s an enormous strategic dimension at stake in counter-balancing the massive influence of China.

While this has become less of a discussion point in recent weeks, we believe it ought to be front and center as Congress considers the full TPP deal. China seeks to write its own rules for trade among nations represented in the agreement, and its actions on issues ranging from currency manipulation to environmental pollution to labor protections suggest that the strategy of circumventing its influence is one that deserves careful consideration by U.S. lawmakers.

We have listened to the concerns expressed by Sens. Warren and Schatz and other critics and believe they deserve Congress’ full attention in the upcoming consideration of the TPP deal. But we also believe this deal should be judged on how well it has incorporated the abiding lessons of previous trade deal failures and on what it stands to provide for the future of our economy, our workforce and our nation as a force for good in the world.

Let the debate begin.

Follow Civil Beat on and , and sign up for Civil Beat’s free daily newsletter.