This is from the Q & A at a recent AEI event with Senator Pat Toomey, hosted by Derek Scissors:
Derek Scissors: ... Let’s not talk about what we agree on. Let’s talk about what we might disagree on, or at least disagree partly on. And I’ll start with a key element of this for you, and I’m not sure it is for me.
As you probably know, the administration, the president originally wanted a much shorter review period. In fact, he wanted a review period in his second term so he could have the option of bailing out of USMCA while he was still president if he won reelection.
I don’t find 16 years to be a problem. Trade agreements change in 16 years. We should have — be evaluating almost every trade agreement after a while to see, as you mentioned correctly with digital trade, you know the situation has changed. There are new technologies. There are new trade patterns. There are new issues to come up. And actually I find a review period at 16 years to be an excellent kind of enforcement. You know, don’t start cheating because we will be looking at this 16 years later in this case, 16 years later, a lot better kind of enforcement than some of the other things you mentioned, which I would also object to.
So let me come back at you about the review mechanism and say 16 years isn’t six years, which is where we started. It’s a reasonable amount of time. Yeah, it creates some uncertainty at the end of the cycle, but there’s going to be uncertainty anyway because the world changes, politics change in the participating countries. And I’d prefer to have a review mechanism that’s general rather than some of the enforcement mechanisms that I know that you and I both have problems with in the agreement.
Pat Toomey: Yeah. So I would disagree with that, but look, the point about the fact that the world changes and you need to be able to reflect those changes in a trade agreement I think is a valid point. The way I think about it is you can always revisit a trade agreement any time you get the three parties together at any day of the week. Any year, you can revisit it for really any reason if you have a collective will to do so.
The question for me is: What’s the presumption? You know, what is the default setting? Is the default setting that it all goes away unless and until you get all three to agree? Or is the default setting that we'll continue this, what I would hope would be a liberalized free trading environment and we’ll make changes when we all agree on what those changes should be? So I think it’s a question of what’s the better default setting to have
Derek Scissors: Do you — and this is a little bit of a nerdy question — but do you read this particular — so I agree with that. I think that’s the right way to have a review mechanism. But do you think that this particular one with regard to USMCA is the default setting is to rip it up in the text, or do we feel like the default setting is to rip it up because there are protectionists both in the administration and the Congress who support it? So if they’re still around in 16 years, their default is to rip it up. In other words, is that the agreement that’s doing this wrong, or is it the political supporters of the agreement who are really thinking about the review mechanism in a harmful fashion?
...
Pat Toomey: I think it’s both. Yeah, I think the administration would have taken this in an even more protectionist direction if they thought they could and still hold Republicans. So I think that’s part of their motivation is to create an opportunity to do that. But yeah, but I think it’s both. I think it’s just — it’s fundamentally a mistake to have it in there.
I think Senator Toomey has this exactly right. Some key points: (1) You can always revisit agreement (lots of evidence of that recently!), and furthermore you should do it regularly rather than after 6 years; (2) setting things up so that termination happens unless all the parties affirmatively agree to extend is a mistake (having it expire if all the parties affirmatively agree not to extend would be better).