|
July 25, 2001 Dear Representative: On behalf of the Sierra Club's more than 700,000 members, I urge you to oppose "fast track" trade legislation, the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001 (H.R. 2149). No amendments now contemplated would mitigate the risk this fast-track bill poses to basic environmental protection at home and around the world. I, therefore, urge you to oppose H.R. 2149 in any form as well as any substitute legislation. Today trade agreements impose an extensive set of limits on national laws, regulations, and administrative procedures in the name of reducing so-called "non-tariff trade barriers." Already, rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) have taken a toll on health and environmental protection with challenges to food safety, clean air, and wildlife safeguards. As trade institutions become more firmly rooted, the number and severity of judgements against environmental, health and safety laws is bound to increase. Given the growing conflicts between trade rules and other important public interests, Congress should use trade negotiating authority to set mandatory negotiating objectives that place environmental and labor priorities on an equal footing with commercial concerns, then establish new mechanisms to hold our negotiators accountable to achieve those objectives. Yet H.R. 2149 does precisely the opposite. Like other recent fast track proposals, it would encourage the President to develop broad new international commercial rules. But it would then suspend normal checks and balances by denying Congress the right to fully debate and amend finished trade agreements or otherwise hold the President accountable for balanced trade agreements. Nothing better illustrates the perils of H.R. 2149 than recent experience with investor rules under the NAFTA, which was established in law through fast-track procedures. NAFTA's investor rules go far beyond the legitimate purpose of protecting the property of foreign investors from direct expropriation. Instead, they give sweeping new powers to foreign investors to sue governments over virtually any action that gets in the investor's way, no matter how important to the public interest. Already under these provisions: The Methanex Corporation of Canada has sued the United States for $1 billion over California's decision to phase out a hazardous gasoline additive called MTBE that is polluting drinking water across much of the country; Canada reversed an act of Parliament in order to lift a ban on imports of the hazardous gasoline additive MMT and paid $13 million damages in order to settle a complaint brought by the Ethyl Corporation; Mexico was ordered to pay the Metalclad Corporation damages of $19 million after a state government blocked operation of a hazardous waste disposal facility that threatened an aquifer. These investor rules would never have taken effect if Congress had not been constrained by fast-track procedures, but had retained sufficient leverage over the executive to truly influence trade negotiations. After all, Congress has had the wisdom to frequently reject similar legislative ideas when enshrined as proposals for "takings" reform. Already the Bush administration has demonstrated its intent to use fast track to expand NAFTA-style investor rules to more countries. Draft investor language of the proposed the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) closely resembles NAFTA's language. The Bush administration also recently agreed to pursue negotiations on investment at the global level in the WTO. In a word, H.R. 4129 opens a Pandora's box that would allow the Bush administration to set into place trade agreements replicating NAFTA's investor provisions that will empower global corporations to sue governments worldwide for adopting any law that can be alleged to interfere with a company's business plans. The effect would be a radical, worldwide shift of power from local, state, and federal governments to stateless global corporations. At one time, it might have made sense to argue that fast track is necessary to ensure that Congress does not pick apart carefully balanced trade agreements. Today, with more and more understanding of the risks entailed in expanding NAFTA's investor rules, the unintended consequences of truncating normal congressional procedures begin to loom very large. Neither the environment, nor our national sovereignty, nor our federal system, can afford fast track if the price we must pay is an expansion of NAFTA's investor rules and other trade rules that can undercut laws adopted in the public interest. The American people deserve thoughtful, bi-partisan deliberations to devise a replacement for fast-track authority that is capable of striking a proper balance between commercial, environmental and labor interests. A fast track replacement, what we call "right track" should include mandatory negotiating objectives that safeguard labor and environmental standards and new mechanisms by which Congress can hold the administration accountable for balanced results before reaching the point of a final, up or down vote on a finished trade agreement. In the few short days remaining before the August recess, Congress does not have time for those careful deliberations. Given the complexity of trade law and policy, the American people are bound to regret any hasty compromise. On that basis, I urge you to reject any fast track proposal framed in the next two weeks. Instead, congressional leaders of both parties should come together with interested citizens in a deliberative fashion to frame a balanced trade policy that is right for our economy, for working families, and for the environment. Sincerely,
Carl Pope Up to Top HOME | Email Signup | About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | © 2008 Sierra Club |
