April 20, 2005
State Legislators Watching International Trade Agreements
Closing Spring Forum session features state, federal speakers on trade
WASHINGTON, D.C. – America is exporting more and more goods and services abroad, and state policymakers are watching international trade issues that could affect economic development and state authority. At the closing plenary session of the National Conference of State Legislatures’ Spring Forum, attendees heard federal and state perspectives on trade matters.
Ambassador Peter Allgeier, acting U.S. trade representative, said the federal government remains protective of states rights as it negotiates new trade agreements. But Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell, president of the National Association of Attorneys General, expressed concern that international agreements are preempting state authority.
In the past 20 years, international trade has grown to account for 25 percent of the United States’ economy, bringing the value of America’s exports to more than $1 trillion in 2004, Allgeier said. And as the economy has grown more complex, so have trade agreements.
“But in every agreement we negotiate, the United States remains very sensitive to, and protective of, our federal system of shared power,” Allgeier said. “We seek to cooperate with state governments because we all share the goal of economic growth and opportunity.”
He added, “Trade agreements do not restrict a state’s right to regulate and do not automatically preempt, invalidate or overturn state laws.”
Sorrell called attention to the word, “automatically,” and disagreed with the ambassador’s assertion. “My concern, despite the assurances from the ambassador, is that international trade agreements are a back door way to preempt the states, to remove power from you and have a one-size-fits-all standard,” Sorrell said to his audience of state legislators, legislative staff, and attorneys general staff.
He gave as an example strip mine redemption regulations in California that are being challenged by an international trade agreement. Sorrell pointed out that the state doesn’t get a chance to defend itself against the challenge. Defending international agreements is in the purview of the federal government.
Rhode Island Representative Peter Lewiss, who co-presided over the session, expected the two speakers to have divergent views. “Each one is advocating for their own interest,” Lewiss said. “I think as legislators, we need to be mindful of each side’s opinion because each side does have some valid points. But state legislators do need to keep in the forefront of their minds the potential preemption of state laws.”
Idaho Representative George Eskridge, who chairs NCSL’s State and Local Working Group on Energy and Trade Policy, believes the federal government’s tactics for protecting federalism when negotiating trade agreements are ineffective.
“The plenary session convinced me more than ever that the states need to get involved in trade issues because they are going to impact individual state policies,” Eskridge said. “Even though the ambassador said trade agreements would not in anyway preempt state laws, the fact is the state laws and trade agreements can be in conflict.”
This plenary session was also part of a two-day special seminar NCSL held with the National Association of Attorneys General on international trade, preemption and the states.
NCSL is a bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the states, commonwealths and territories. It provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues and is an effective and respected advocate for the interests of the states in the American federal system.
###
|
