Colombia trade fight could cripple U.S. fast track

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A brewing battle between the White House and Congress over a trade pact with Colombia could cripple the "fast track" process that Republican and Democratic presidents have used for over 30 years to approve trade deals.

Although the U.S. Constitution gives Congress jurisdiction over trade, lawmakers have traditionally delegated authority to negotiate deals to the White House.

To assure foreign governments that Congress would act on those agreements in a timely manner, policymakers devised a legislative procedure in 1974 that came to be known as fast-track or, more recently, "trade promotion authority."

Former President Bill Clinton relied on fast track to win approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement in November 1993 and the Uruguay Round world trade agreement a year later.

Now with the Doha round of world trade talks edging toward a possible conclusion, the fight between the White House and Democratic-controlled Congress over the Colombia deal threatens to unravel the inner workings of fast track.

On the surface, the law requires both houses of Congress to approve or reject a trade deal within 90 days of receiving it from the White House and without making any changes.

But ultimately, parliamentary experts say, fast track is a congressional "rule" for considering trade deals. Lawmakers can vote to change the procedures if they want or even exclude a certain trade agreement from fast track protection.

"The parts that deal with procedures in the House and the Senate remain exercises of the rule making power and subject to change by further rule making," said a congressional expert on House legislative procedures.

So, if Bush submits the Colombia agreement to Congress over the objections of senior Democrats, it is possible lawmakers could create a new rule releasing themselves from the obligation of having to consider the pact.

WORSE THAN REJECTION?

In the long run that could be worse for U.S. trade policy than an outright rejection of the Colombia trade pact. It would destroy fast track as a procedure for getting trade deals through Congress, said R.K. "Judge" Morris, president of the Global Business Dialogue, a trade advocacy group.

"Once you have demonstrated that the law isn't a law, in the sense that it can't be tested by the courts and you can't enforce it, then it loses value," Morris said.

It is still unclear how the Colombia debate will play out, but U.S. labor groups have urged Congress to delay action on the trade agreement for at least a year.

They say more proof is needed that Colombia has turned away from its long history of violence against trade unionists and is serious about bringing killers of labor leaders to justice.

The Bush administration argues just as emphatically that Colombia "deserves a vote" this year because of the progress the country has already made.

Susan Aaronson, a George Washington University associate professor who has written extensively on trade policy, said she believes approval of the free trade agreement, combined with a U.S. technical assistance program, would help Colombia improve its record on human rights.

But U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab needs to consider the "larger implications for fast track" before deciding to try to force Congress to vote on the pact and alienating Democrats whose support she needs for approval, Aaronson said.

The Colombia agreement, and two other accords with South Korea and Panama, are covered by fast track because the deals were signed before authorizing legislation expired in 2006.

As the United States struggles to bring the six-year-old Doha round to a successful conclusion, many trading partners are worried about the Bush administration's ability to win congressional approval of a deal.

U.S. trade officials have insisted they can persuade Congress to renew fast track if a Doha deal is in sight. But that might not much be much reassurance, if fast track implodes.

(Editing by Chris Wilson)