It’s an old movie, but a favorite. And each time I see it, I get excited and hope for a different outcome. Some say that’s a definition of insanity.
Many administrations have tried to reorganize the trade-related agencies of the U.S. Government. The concept is simple: we’ve got all these parts of government that work on trade, exports and imports, and they spend so much of their time (and budget) fighting each other or duplicating, wouldn’t it make sense to pull them together? Of course, it would. Then things fall apart.
The Obama version of the film is getting into its second act. It got started a couple years back when Gary Locke, the Secretary of Commerce, announced his personal campaign to streamline America’s export control system (something to be roundly applauded). Then, about a year ago, the President made an appearance on screen with his proposal for a National Export Initiative. Locke’s performance was followed by the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, signing on to Locke’s export control ideas and announcing an Administration plan to create a single export licensing agency with a single list of controlled products. The new export control agency would combine the export control functions of Commerce, the State Department and the Treasury Department (somehow, the Defense Department got lost somewhere and I haven’t found it yet).
But now the plot thickens. The White House is muttering about corralling the trade policy and export promotion gangs into a single organization. William Daley, the new chief of staff, had some experience with these critters when he was Secretary of Commerce, so he knows how big the herd actually is. Let’s see, just off the top of my head, there’s Commerce’s International Trade Administration (doing both promotion and policy work, and including the U.S. Commercial Service), the National Institute for Science & Technology also at Commerce (international product standards), the State Department’s economic officers (who do trade policy work and commercial work in countries that Commerce can’t or won’t cover), the Foreign Agricultural Service over at Agriculture (roughly the same mission as the Commercial Service, but for different products), the Trade & Development Program (helps finance feasibility and pre-feasibility studies for overseas projects), the Small Business Administration’s trade operation (which, in some respects, overlaps Commerce’s domestic export assistance centers), the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation … I know I have missed several. How about the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, part of the White House itself, which oversees and usually conducts trade negotiations for the United States. And then there is the International Trade Commission.
At least 20 federal agencies sit on the President’s Export Promotion Cabinet. Many of these agencies have numerous offices charged with critical elements of export activity. In the area of export promotion, for instance, the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration, the Agriculture Department’s Foreign Agricultural Service, and the Export-Import Bank of the United States are each charged with helping U.S. companies expand into foreign markets.
This understates the number of agencies involved in trade, which change from issue to issue. My toughest negotiations were those in Washington between federal agencies fighting over what the U.S. positions should be on trade issues. Depending on the subject matter, you had the U.S. Customs Service, the Interior Department, the Department of Labor and many more voicing their opinions. A proposal on trade in alcoholic beverages would attract the attention of at least two or three parts of Treasury, as well as different offices at Commerce and Agriculture. Then we would talk about fish exports with Commerce, Agriculture, Interior, State and USTR. The proverbial herding of cats.
If that weren’t sufficient, consider the role of Congress as any trade re-organization reaches its final scenes. With all these different federal agencies potentially involved, you get an equal number of Congressional committees and sub-committees going to the mat to preserve their control over those agencies. Add to the reel the ideas of individual representatives and senators, and you have a real donnybrook going.
Commerce is like Noah's Ark
So, I am excited and I wish the current protagonists the best of luck. Their blueprint seems to be a report issued last December by the Center for American Progress, A Focus on Competitiveness: Restructuring Policymaking for Results. The authors propose that several competitiveness committees and task forces be created to look at all these trade activities and come up with a proposal, but they also go ahead and make a strong suggestion that the result should be dismemberment of the present Department of Commerce. That’s not a bad idea, though it has been tried before. (Those with long memories may recall a proposed trade ministry for the United States with the redundant name of the Department of Trade and Commerce.) Few people quote former Secretary of Commerce Juanita Kreps, but she once described Commerce as being “… like Noah’s ark, but with only one of everything.”
This time, the new organization would be called the Department of Business, Trade and Technology. It would be filled by current trade-related operations from Commerce, USTR, SBA, EximBank, OPIC and TDA. Non-trade parts of the existing Commerce Department would be hived off to other departments. The Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis would go to a new U.S. Statistical Agency, and the national oceanic and Atmospheric Agency would be showhorned into Interior (though what NOAA’s work, say, in the Antarctic has to do with Interior’s mission is a conundrum). The new department (DBTT) would also get job training programs carved out of Labor and Education. And maybe economic development programs from Housing, Energy and Transportation.
Oh, this is going to be fun to watch. Think I’ll get a large popcorn and get comfortable.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário