|
Learn more about the Kerry Amendment to stop NAFTA's corporate lawsuits:
The Kerry Amendment
(80k PDF file)
Comparison of the Kerry Amendment with the "investment" section in the Baucus-Grassley fast-track bill.
(11k PDF file)
Letter from environmental community supporting the Kerry Amendment over a weak alternative proposed by Senator Baucus.
(7k PDF file)
Taxpayers for Common Sense says NAFTA's corporate lawsuits could cost US taxpayers billions.
(14k PDF file)
Floor statement by Senator Kerry on weaker, alternative amendment by Senator Baucus on investment issue (May 13, 2002):
"Mr. President, I want to speak just briefly about the Chairman's amendment. I understand what the Senator is trying to do with this amendment, and I appreciate his efforts to seek common ground. He has not had an easy job trying to steer this omnibus trade package through very stormy seas. I am grateful for the Chairman's willingness to be responsive to some of the concerns that I - and others - have raised. However, on the issue of investor-state dispute settlement, I am afraid that substantial disagreement
remains. The Baucus-Grassley amendment makes a minor change to the bill. It is certainly better than the current language, but it just does not do a good enough job of protecting the ability of federal, state and local governments to enact legitimate public health and safety legislation. As my colleagues know by now, it is clear that NAFTA's investor-state dispute resolution process - popularly known as "Chapter 11" - will be the model upon which future such agreements are predicated. Chapter 11 is a flawed model, not a failed model. I believe that having an investor-state dispute settlement process in a trade agreement is vital to ensuring that U.S. investors are able to invest abroad with confidence - but it needs to be improved.
"Regrettably, the Baucus-Grassley amendment does not - despite what its proponents claim - effectively address the shortcomings in the Chapter 11 model. Adopting the Baucus-Grassley language without other needed changes will still allow future Chapter 11-like tribunals to rule against legitimate U.S. public health and safety laws using a standard of expropriation that goes well beyond the clear standard that the Supreme Court has established in all its expropriation cases.
"The amendment before us does not give any assurances that the due process clause of the Constitution will be respected, nor does it provide safe harbor for legitimate U.S. public health and safety laws.
"Without all of these safeguards, future investor-state dispute settlement bodies can run roughshod over the ability of state and local governments - or even the federal government - to make laws to protect the public. I have an amendment that I believe will make those improvements to the underlying bill, and I intend to offer that amendment soon.
"I will not oppose the pending amendment because it does not make the underlying bill any worse. But let us be clear: the Chapter 11 model is flawed. Any suggestions that the Baucus-Grassley amendment takes care of these problems are simply incorrect.
"So I think we should adopt this amendment by unanimous consent, but I do believe that the Senate should have a thorough debate on this issue."
Up to Top
HOME |
Email Signup |
About Us |
Contact Us |
Terms of Use |
© 2008 Sierra Club
|
