7:40 AM Dec 10, 1993

US FAST TRACK DEADLINE - WHAT IT IS AND IS NOT

Geneva 10 Dec (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- The US President's 'fast track' authority deadline to engage and conclude trade agreements appears to be capable of some convenient interpretations depending on the understanding that Congress and the President might reach.

Under the fast track authority, Congress commits itself to consider the outcome of any agreements concluded by the US President under this authority, and vote either yes or no to the agreement and all the amending legislations needed to give effect to them.

The 15 December deadline for concluding the Uruguay Round negotiations have been set by the Trade Negotiations Committee because of the US fast track authority deadlines.

A trade policy expert in Washington, who has been following the issues from the perspective of developing countries but did not want to be identified, explained the situation as follows:

The legislation under which the U.S. is negotiating in the Uruguay Round, the so-called "fast-track", expires on April 15, 1994.

In order to avail itself of the so-called "fast-track" approval process, the Clinton Administration must enter into the GATT agreement by that date.

However, the legislation requires that the Administration provide at least 120 days notice of its intention to enter into the agreement.

That is where the December 15, 1993 deadline comes from. By that date, midnight of 15 December Washington time, the President has to notify Congress of his intention to enter into such an agreement.

All that is required is a simple notification to this effect, and not the agreement itself and all its details.

But because of past abuses of these provisions (e.g., the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement negotiations) Congress will demand that the bulk of this 120 day period be used to review the detailed, final agreement. While there may be a short period of time after December 15 to work out so-called technical details, once Congress returns to Washington in mid-January, they will want to see the final GATT deal.

Once the Administration has met the December 15 and April 15 deadlines, there is then no requirement as to when the administration actually introduce legislation to implement the agreement. Historically, such legislation is quickly introduced after consultations have been completed with Congress.

However, were the Clinton Administration to decide to put off the debate over the GATT deal until after the 1994 November elections to the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate, they could withhold introduction of the implementing legislation. Were the GATT deal to call for implementation on January 1, 1995, then it would not be possible for the Administration to delay introduction of the legislation.

The current thinking in Washington, the expert concluded, is that the consideration of the GATT deal by Congress will begin in early summer 1994.

That the Clinton administration has various options in mind, but has not made up which one to pursue, is evidence from the fact that in the technical consultations at the GATT, they have separated the proposed Ministerial meeting at Marakesh in mid-April from the proposed Ministerial implementation conference (which could only come after the US ratification)

Originally, until a few weeks ago, these were intended to be back to back meetings.

Now there is talk of an implementation conference in November/December 1994. Some sources say that the Clinton administration would decide its options depending on whether Uruguay Round accords become as heated and controversial as the NAFTA or would be relatively easier. In the former event, no Congressmen would like again to be counted in a vote so close to his elections in November.