I have been suggesting that Congress should clarify its role in the decision required under the USMCA's sunset clause on whether to extend the agreement, and Congressman Steven Horsford came through for me at yesterday's House Ways and Means Committee hearing (starts at 3:37:50). Here's what he asked:
Rep. Horsford: “… And finally, I’m concerned about the sunset clause and the fact that it has some automatic renewal provisions that could go around Congressional authority and approval.”
I understood this to mean that Congressman Horsford was interested in the role Congress would play in the USMCA extension decision. But Lighthizer's answer seems to take the question in a different direction:
Amb. Lighthizer: “… And then on the issue of sunset, I guess I didn’t quite understand the point. We have a sunset provision in here. Most trade agreements, for reasons that don’t make any sense to me, are eternal and this one is temporal, although it’s complicated how it works. So, if there is any usurpation of Congressional prerogatives in trade agreements, it would be, I would suggest, in all the others and less in this one.”
Horsford tried to clarify by adding this:
Rep. Horsford: “So if I could Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, you will come back for approval with any sunset clause. It doesn’t take the Congressional oversight accountability or approval process."
Lighthizer's further response seems to insist they are on the same page:
Amb. Lighthizer: “There’ll be no coming back – that’s how trade agreements work. It’s kind of a crazy thing, but they kind of become, that they’re just eternal. We just pass these things and then they go on forever and ever and ever. What this one does is it has a process, which as you know, that every six years you’ll have a review and see if whether or not this is something you want to extend, and if it isn’t then it will expire in a certain period of time after. But this is, I would suggest, that this is like an extremely important idea, exactly consistent with where you’re coming from. And it’s an innovative way to do exactly what you want to do. And I want to sit and talk to you about it because I think this is right in your sweet spot."
But I'm really not sure they are talking about the same thing. Lighthizer is focused on the sunset clause's requirement of an affirmative decision to extend the agreement, which he sees as a positive; Horsford is thinking about the role of Congress in this decision.
I'll close by repeating what I've said before: "[W]hich U.S. government branch gets to decide on whether the agreement should be extended as part of this review? What is the role of Congress here? Congress has ceded a lot of power to the President on trade over the years, and if it allows this provision to stay in, it better make sure that it has a full say on whether to confirm that the United States wishes to extend the new NAFTA deal as part of the review." I hope Congressman Horsford and others keep pressing Lighthizer on this behind the scenes, and use the USMCA implementing legislation to give Congress a say in the decision on whether to extend (one approach would be that the decision will be in favor of extension unless both Congress and the President agree not to extend).
