Same reason you'd use the similar rules for BRAC: By forcing politicians to take an up-or-down vote on measures of national importance you get the best chance at a vote on the merits of the bill in question, without parochial concerns creeping in.
You'd never expect members of Congress from Florida to vote in favor of a bill that takes away a military base at Jacksonville, for instance, no matter how much excess capacity is resident at the base. For instance Naval Station Mayport has not had a carrier homeported there for years ever since the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) was decommissioned. So all of the infrastructure at the base dedicated to carrier-centric concerns could be shuttered and possibly save the taxpayers some money, but doing so would forestall the option of adding a carrier later, and would probably reduce the number of personnel assigned to the base.
Alternately you could assign a nuclear carrier to the base to make use of the infrastructure present, but you'd need to make further upgrades to handle nuclear carriers, and assigning a carrier to Mayport would necessarily mean removing it from Norfolk.
Guess which state's delegation has successfully prevented the use of funds to expand Mayport's carrier capabilities? Hint: They are north of North Carolina and south of Maryland.
Now a bill like a free trade bill is practically the definition of a bill easily tainted with parochial concerns. That's the reason there was a similar outcry over NAFTA while it was being drafted, when "experts" at the time were stridently predicting the impending implosion of the American economy, with wording that would have made Steinbeck sound like a happy-go-lucky author.
It's telling when the zeal over free trade turns even progressive icons like Bernie Sanders into racists that resort to turning Vietnamese (as one example) into a sub-class of humanity compared to Americans. It's also telling when the worst accusation that can be laid against the proposal to date is that "it's still being negotiated in secret!!!1", as if that wasn't also the method used to negotiate most major international agreements.
The final proposal may turn out to be bad, and in that case I'll be the first to recommend vetoing the proposal as a whole. But simplified trade authority approval procedures are precisely the right thing to do, as otherwise you end up with "ratification" bills that ratify something completely different than what had been agreed, usually with a Ted Stevens-style "Bridge to Nowhere" attached right on top.
You'd never expect members of Congress from Florida to vote in favor of a bill that takes away a military base at Jacksonville, for instance, no matter how much excess capacity is resident at the base. For instance Naval Station Mayport has not had a carrier homeported there for years ever since the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) was decommissioned. So all of the infrastructure at the base dedicated to carrier-centric concerns could be shuttered and possibly save the taxpayers some money, but doing so would forestall the option of adding a carrier later, and would probably reduce the number of personnel assigned to the base.
Alternately you could assign a nuclear carrier to the base to make use of the infrastructure present, but you'd need to make further upgrades to handle nuclear carriers, and assigning a carrier to Mayport would necessarily mean removing it from Norfolk.
Guess which state's delegation has successfully prevented the use of funds to expand Mayport's carrier capabilities? Hint: They are north of North Carolina and south of Maryland.
Now a bill like a free trade bill is practically the definition of a bill easily tainted with parochial concerns. That's the reason there was a similar outcry over NAFTA while it was being drafted, when "experts" at the time were stridently predicting the impending implosion of the American economy, with wording that would have made Steinbeck sound like a happy-go-lucky author.
It's telling when the zeal over free trade turns even progressive icons like Bernie Sanders into racists that resort to turning Vietnamese (as one example) into a sub-class of humanity compared to Americans. It's also telling when the worst accusation that can be laid against the proposal to date is that "it's still being negotiated in secret!!!1", as if that wasn't also the method used to negotiate most major international agreements.
The final proposal may turn out to be bad, and in that case I'll be the first to recommend vetoing the proposal as a whole. But simplified trade authority approval procedures are precisely the right thing to do, as otherwise you end up with "ratification" bills that ratify something completely different than what had been agreed, usually with a Ted Stevens-style "Bridge to Nowhere" attached right on top.