Under expedited procedures, power is delegated to the president but ultimately reserved for the Congress. After a trade agreement is reached under fast track, the administration and congressional committees typically negotiate the final implementing language together before the pact is formally submitted to Congress. Only then does the fast-track clock begin to tick. True, fast track strengthens presidents' autonomy from Congress, but they are ultimately constrained by the need to garner majorities in the House and Senate. Fast track focuses the institutional power of Congress instead of frittering it away by endless amendment and filibustering delay.
Fast track has a record of success.
Fast-track consideration of military base closing packages solved a long standoff between advocates of streamlining military resources and members of Congress seeking to protect jobs at home. Protecting budget reconciliation bills from filibusters and unrelated rider amendments has proved critical to fostering compromise on spending and taxing priorities. Fast-track opponents often argue that such procedures violate the traditions of the Senate, where few limits have ever been placed on the right to debate and amend legislation endlessly. Barring filibusters and setting a time certain for final votes, expedited procedures have proved invaluable for taming the unpredictability of the Senate. Congress should debate and craft fast-track legislation for future global trade talks, taking into account concerns about labor and environmental protection and other pressing trade matters.