In the latest congressional critique of President Donald Trump’s NAFTA gambit, Democrats on the House Ways and Means committee expressed distaste for a potential bilateral trade deal with Mexico and raised questions about the legality of such an agreement in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer on Monday.
The letter, signed by seven Democratic members of the committee, indicated that Lighthizer’s recent notification of a trade deal with Mexico—“and with Canada if it is willing,”—may not be compliant with Trade Promotion Authority, the law that gives the White House flexibility in trade negotiations. The TPA process takes 180 days and gives fast-track privilege to trade agreements in Congress by limiting debate time, amendments, and preventing the Senate filibuster.
“[T]he negotiating objectives you published were specific to a trilateral deal and your office never released any negotiating objectives regarding a bilateral deal with either Mexico or Canada,” the Democrats, including Sander Levin, Linda Sanchez, Mike Thompson, Earl Blumenauer, Terri Sewell, Ron Kind, and Suzan DelBene wrote.
Lighthizer notified Congress of the administration’s plans to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico for the purpose of modernization last spring. The White House reached a preliminary deal with Mexico at the end of August, but negotiators have not been able to overcome a number of key disagreements during ongoing talks with Canada. TPA requires that the trade representative inform Congress of the president’s intention to sign a deal 90 days before the signing takes place. Full text of that deal must be submitted 30 days after the notification (60 days before signing).
The rush to meet TPA deadlines comes as current Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto prepares to leave office at the end of November. Both administrations want Nieto to sign the deal before he is replaced by left-wing president-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Lighthizer and his team argue that Canada can join in on the agreement any time before the end of September, when text of the deal is due. Members of Congress aren’t entirely convinced.
“While we appreciate that it takes time to iron out the final details and text, we believe that it is not in the spirit of TPA to send Congress an official notification letter until all three parties have formally agreed to move forward together with an updated trilateral agreement,” the Ways and Means Democrats said in their letter. They continued with a list of procedural questions for Lighthizer, inquiring whether he would commit to providing full text of the agreement — whether Canada is a party or not — by September 30, and asking how advisory committees would be able to compile accurate reports in time in such an uncertain environment. These questions may offer a glimpse at how a Democratic House, post-November midterms, might derail Trump’s renegotiated NAFTA.
But House Democrats aren’t the only ones who have questioned the legality of the White House’s strategy. When Trump announced that a bilateral deal with Mexico would replace NAFTA instead of a modernized trilateral agreement if negotiations with Canada fall through, several Senate Republicans told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that approach would be impossible. Canada’s participation is a requirement, they argued.
“What the administration submitted to Congress in setting up the opportunity to use TPA, and the expedited process that TPA allows, contemplated a revision to a tri-party agreement,” Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey said at the time. “So it’s my understanding that this has to be a tri-party agreement.”
Shortly after, Trump tweeted a clear threat to congressional Republicans: “There is no political necessity to keep Canada in the new NAFTA deal. If we don’t make a fair deal for the U.S. after decades of abuse, Canada will be out. Congress should not interfere w/ these negotiations or I will simply terminate NAFTA entirely & we will be far better off…”
Since then, GOP leaders have opted to keep their doubts concerning TPA compliance to themselves. “We’ll cross that bridge if we need to,” House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady told TWS when asked about the potential deal with Mexico. “The best trade agreement would be between all three countries.”
And House Speaker Paul Ryan, who was instrumental in drafting and passing TPA as chair of Ways and Means in 2015, stayed quiet on the matter. “That’s a good question,” he said during a press conference last week.
“The devil’s in the details … I want to see this run its course before making a judgment.”
