Congress and the President have been trying to agree on what to include in U.S. trade agreements. Time is running out, as the deadline for formally notifying Congress of pending agreements, so that they're eligible for the expedited procedures of current trade promotion authority, expires Saturday night.
Yesterday, House Ways and Means Chair Charles Rangel, and Trade Subcommittee Chair Sander Levin, laid out what they need to see to approve pending trade agreements, and renewal of trade promotion authority: Rangel and Levin Unveil New Trade Policy for America (House Ways and Means Committee website, March 27).
Victoria McGrane reports: Trade Law Set to Expire; Agenda at Crossroads (Congressional Quarterly, March27). And here's a report from Eoin Callan: House Democrats offer Bush a deal on trade (Financial Times, March 28). Daniel Drezner is optimistic: An odd, optimistic moment on trade policy (March 28)
Why does the Saturday deadline matter? McGrane:
“This is the make-or-break week for the trade agenda,” said Christopher Wenk, senior director of international policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “They have to have something out.”
According to the trade law, the administration must notify lawmakers 90 days before it signs an agreement.
The March 31 deadline applies to the difficult negotiations with South Korea. The administration also hasn’t officially notified Congress of the Panama deal.
The legal status of the Peru and Colombia pacts is less clear. Technically, the administration has already notified Congress of those agreements. The trade representative maintains that the March 31 deadline does not apply, but Levin has said it would if the trade deals are changed.
Rangel and Levin said they want to complete negotiations with Republican colleagues and the administration by week’s end to avoid such legal questions.
Negotiators would also have to decide how to incorporate compromise language into deals already negotiated. One way is a side agreement that would allow the nations to avoid re-opening completed deals.
James Pethokoukis at the U.S. News & World Report blog Capital Commerce, analyses the Democratic proposal: Rangel Proposal Won't Pacify the 'Seattle Democrats' (March 29). I learned about this from Daniel Drezner.
Revised March 30.
We will know the results of these efforts by tomorrow. As of today, however, the CVDs applied to China make ominous portents. What would it matter if these deals were made but so many labor and environmental strings were attached as to alter their intent? It'd be a Phyrric victory of sorts.
Posted by: Emmanuel | March 30, 2007 at 10:18 AM