TRADE PACT COMMITMENT CLAUSE * The bill stipulates that the Buy American provision be "applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements." * That is further explained in separate report language on the bill to clarify that it requires the United States to comply with obligations under the World Trade Organization's government procurement agreement and under the North American Free Trade Agreement and other U.S. free trade accords. * The report language says products from least-developed countries would be treated in the same manner as countries with which the United States has formal trade commitments. * The trade compliance language gives members of the WTO's government pact such as the European Union, Japan, Canada, South Korea and Taiwan comfort they could provide material for a public works project funded by the stimulus bill. . . . WAIVER AUTHORITY * The act allows the Buy American mandate to be waived if the federal agency overseeing a particular project deems it would be "inconsistent with the public interest." * It can also be waived if iron, steel and the relevant manufactured goods "are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality" or if it would increase the overall cost of a project by more than 25 percent. * The waivers can apply to a "category of cases" so if a particular product is not made in the United States, contractors would not have to apply over and over again for permission to use it.

(Emphasis supplied.) The 25% steel subsidy is a provision that was put in place in the 1980s by President Reagan. I believe it was allowed to lapse at some point and now returns. But I might be wrong on this. It might never have lapsed. I'll doublecheck that point. But I do know that the original Buy American provision provided absolute requirement that domestic steel and iron be used. so even this 25% subsidy is a weakening of the original provision.

As for the rest of the provisions, this is all existing law as I understand it. In short, the attempted imposition of stricter Buy American provisions seems to have fallen by the wayside, at President Obama's behest.

Booman relies on an LATimes story on the issue:

"Buy American" rules remain in the stimulus bill that the president is scheduled to sign Tuesday, but labor advocates were alarmed by Obama's willingness to insert himself in the debate as a champion of business concerns. They said his stance was far different than during the presidential election, when Obama was trying to win union votes and called for rebuilding America with union-made materials.

While it is true the Buy American language remains (it was mostly already on the books anyway), the language about complying with trade agreements pretty much strips it of any new teeth. I am not sure how anyone can plausibly argue that Obama did not weaken the Buy American provisions in the stimulus bill. He clearly did.

Now that's all right with me. If and when the President goes back on promises I care about, I will and have been screaming loudly. I find it interesting that folks claiming to feel strongly about "fair trade" issues have stood mute on this one. I suspect they will be disappointed on trade agreements generally with President Obama (I have always said that I believed Obama would agree with me on trade and I see no evidence to think I am wrong.) I wonder if they will continue to be muted on that issue.

I think they will. I think they are playing for one particular issue - EFCA, the Employer Free Choice Act. I think labor will give Obama lots of room on everything else but I think they will absolutely pummel President Obama if he does not fight for passage of EFCA.

We will find out pretty soon.

Speaking for me only