|
What's Next for Fast Track?
It is expected that the U.S. Senate will vote on the Fast Track bill
as early as the first week of February 2002. San Diego Green Party members
have been meeting with members from other organizations who actively
oppose Fast Track. According to reports from the California Fair Trade
Coalition, it will be difficult if not impossible to sway enough
Senators to vote against this bill. We will continue to meet and
discuss different strategies against Fast Track. If you are interested
in this issue please email Magali at
magali@sdgreens.org or call (858)
578-4505.
In the meantime take some time to write to our California Senators,
Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. They need to hear from their
constituents and others about why Fast Track needs to be voted down,
or at the least, changed. Although we are in support of getting rid of
Fast Track completely, here are ways in which Fast Track can be
changed:
Change language around negotiating objectives. Currently the
language is weaker than what was used to pass NAFTA. Add enforceable
measures that protect the environment and jobs in the U.S. and abroad.
It is estimated that over 500,000 jobs have been lost in the U.S.
because of NAFTA. It is a known fact that Fast Track will be used to
pass the FTAA agreement which will expand NAFTA throughout the
Americas. U.S. jobs will be lost, poverty in the Americas will rise
and migration north will increase as well.
Limit the Executive Branch from signing trade agreements that would
result in creating corporate courts. This is directly related to
language around chapter 11. Currently, a corporation can sue the
government for restricting their rights under NAFTA.
Ask that the ban on labelling Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
be excluded from the Fast Track bill. Over thirty nations around the
world currently require labelling of GMO products as a response to
their citizen's concerns. Each nation, including our own, should have
the right to make such decisions without penalty.
Contact your Senator
Use the form at www.unionvoice.org to send a fax to your Senator or write a letter to the addresses below. Remember that letters are better than emails.
Dianne Feinstein
Phone in DC:
(202) 224-3841
San Diego office
750 "B" Street,
Suite 1030
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 231-9712
(619) 231-1108 Fax
or send her an email through
her website
|
Barbara Boxer
San Diego office
600 B Street,
Suite 2240
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 239-3884
(619) 239-5719 fax
or send her an email through
her website.
|
For more facts on Fast Track and Fair Trade:
Fast Track Congress votes. Results are in.
Global Trade Watch page
Global Exchange's Fast Track page
International Federation for Alternative Trade
Reasons to oppose Fast Track Proposal
1. Fast Track Proposal drafted by Rep. Thomas is Divisive
Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA) began maneuvering immediately after the 9/11
attacks to advance a so-called "compromise" bill on fast track (now
called "trade promotion authority"). While the nation was in mourning,
Thomas appears to have jumped at an opportunity to take advantage of the
pressure on lawmakers to demonstrate unity in order to secure passage of
divisive legislation. The last Administration failed twice to obtain
trade promotion authority. The current U.S. Congress had to delay a
vote on the bill until after the August recess, due to lack of support.
The country deserves a thorough and thoughtful debate on this
controversial issue-not a senseless rush to advance an unpopular free
trade agenda.
2. Thomas Proposal a Sleight of Hand on Labor and Environment
Thomas claims that his proposal incorporates concerns about labor and
environmental impacts of free trade. However, upon close inspection, it
is clear that these proposals do not adequately address these concerns.
First of all, the proposal merely calls for U.S. trade officials to seek
labor and environmental provisions in future trade agreements. It does
not make them mandatory. Moreover, the proposal falls short of
demanding that countries respect the internationally recognized
standards established by the International Labor Organization. Instead,
it asks U.S. officials to seek a commitment to enforce existing domestic
laws, which are inadequate in many countries. On environment, the
proposal only calls for "promoting consideration" of Multilateral
Environmental Agreements, such as the international conventions on
biodiversity and climate change. Environmentalists have demanded that
these international agreements take precedent over international trade
laws. The proposal completely ignores concerns about the controversial
investor protections under NAFTA, which are perhaps the most extreme
examples of excessive power granted to corporations in trade agreements.
3. Claims that We Can Fight Terrorism with Trade are Opportunistic and
Misguided
In recent speeches and published commentaries, U.S. Trade Representative
Robert Zoellick has asserted that trade promotion authority is necessary
as a means to fight terrorism. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) expressed the
feeling of many by responding that he was "offended by the strategy of
the Current United States Trade Representative to use the tragedy in New
York and at the Pentagon to fuel political momentum behind a partisan
'Fast Track' proposal." Beyond his sheer opportunism, Zoellick is
misguided in his claim that the current free trade agenda is a tool for
promoting international security. Instead, agreements like NAFTA
encourage a form of international dog-eat-dog competition that rewards
labor repression and environmental destruction and exacerbates economic
inequality and financial volatility. To promote real security, we need
new rules to guide the global economy that place controls on corporate
behavior and support dignified jobs, a clean environment, financial
stability, and healthy, democratic communities.
4. Claims about the Benefits of Free Trade are Flawed
The U.S. Trade Representative has repeatedly claimed that the North
American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization have
created an annual benefit of $1,300 to $2,000 for the average American
family. However, according to the Economic Policy Institute, these
numbers do not represent the actual experience of these treaties but
rather estimates based on forecasting models of what the effects might
be. In fact, these were the same models that predicted that NAFTA would
create more and better U.S. jobs by generating a U.S. trade surplus with
Mexico. Seven years later, just the opposite has occurred. The U.S.
trade deficit with Mexico has mushroomed to about $35 billion. Beyond
the negative impacts of this influx of imports on employment, NAFTA has
given employers even more power to threaten to move production to Mexico
or other low-wage countries in order to fight unions and bargain down
wages in the United States.
5. NAFTA Record Undermines Argument that Free Trade is Good for the Poor
in Developing Countries
President Bush recently claimed that "those who protest free trade are
no friends of the poor. Those who protest free trade seek to deny them
their best hope for escaping poverty." The experience of Mexico under
NAFTA completely undermines this argument. Despite dramatic increases
in Mexican exports to the United States and in foreign investment since
NAFTA went into effect, average Mexicans have seen little benefit. In
fact, the value of real wages in manufacturing has dropped about 21
percent, despite a sharp increase in productivity. Meanwhile, the World
Bank reports that the percentage of Mexicans living in poverty has
increased from about 51 percent to more than 58 percent. The true
lesson of NAFTA is that free trade is no automatic friend of the poor,
particularly when workers' rights to fight for their fair share of
economic benefits are not respected. Before Congress grants trade
promotion authority to expand NAFTA through the Free Trade Area of the
Americas, we need a careful analysis of the problems with NAFTA and a
full debate on better alternatives.
- Sarah Anderson, Institute for Policy Studies, October 3, 2001
Roll Call
October 29, 2001
Some New Democrats Balk On Trade Deal
By Susan Crabtree
Dealing
a new blow to the chances of President Bush winning more freedom to
negotiate trade deals, several business-friendly House Democrats are
threatening to yank their support for the bill unless House GOP leaders
agree to address their concerns. About a dozen lawmakers, many of them
pro-trade New Democrats, are frustrated that the GOP leadership has
failed to move any legislation providing economic relief for workers
displaced by the events of Sept. 11 and the slowing economy.
"It's
an issue that Republicans said they would deal with,"said Rep. Adam
Smith (D), whose Washington district is home to several Boeing
manufacturing plants, a company he says has been forced to lay off
about 100,000 workers nationwide since the terrorist attacks. "We've
got a fair number of people laid off, and our country should be able to
take care of the people in need."
"Speaker
[Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)] publicly stated his support for worker
relief, but we've seen little or no progress on it on the House side,"
added Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.).
Even
though administration officials have stepped up lobbying efforts on
trade promotion authority, in the past week Republican leaders have
failed to present a clear picture of when - or if - it would come up
this year.
Ways
and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), the chief sponsor of the GOP
trade bill, said in an interview Friday that he would like to take up
TPA before the World Trade Organization's ministerial meeting in Doha,
Qatar, on Nov. 9.
But
Friday, Hastert spokesman John Feehery said the House was only "pretty
likely" to take up the bill this year, giving it an "85 percent" chance
of coming to the floor.
When
the House passed a $15 billion bailout for the airline industry at the
end of September, Smith said that at the time GOP leaders promised they
also would do something to meet the needs of workers who had been laid
off.
But in
the past two weeks, Democrats' cries for funds to help displaced
workers have gone unanswered as GOP leaders passed a stimulus package
full of tax cuts for corporations.
Earlier
this month conservative Republicans threatened to pull their support
for the trade deal, formerly known as fast track, unless White House
officials agreed to their demands on the economic-stimulus plan and an
aviation security measure.
The
White House and House GOP leaders appear to have headed off the
conservative revolt for now, although some Republicans this week are
also voicing new concern over how TPA would affect textile and citrus
interests in their districts.
"I figure if [conservative Republicans] are leveraging one way, that forces my hand to leverage the other way," Smith said.
Smith
laid out his argument in a letter addressed to Hastert that he
circulated over the weekend. By Friday, five Democrats had signed it -
Reps. Ford, Ron Kind (Wis.), John Larson (Conn.), Rick Larsen (Wash.)
and David Wu (Ore.).
Until
the issue is resolved "in a fairer and more reasonable manner, we will
not support passage of any trade promotional authority, or 'fast track'
legislation,"they wrote.
GOP lawmakers in trade bill push
By Takashi Yokota, Medill News Service
Last Update: 8:31 PM ET Oct. 29, 2001
CBS Market Watch
WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- As Republicans lawmakers sought to advance
legislation that would expand presidential trade-negotiating authority, the
bill's backers hoped to open House debate by next week, Republican sources
said.
The proposed measure would prevent Congress from making amendments to trade
agreements made by the president, thus streamlining his capacity to reach a
trade agreement. Foreign leaders have expressed reluctance to hold trade
talks with the United States' negotiators whose authority is limited under
current law.
While the so-called fast-track bill is considered a high priority,
aviation-security and appropriations bills have more urgency, said Christin
Tinsworth, spokesperson for Rep. William Thomas, R-Calif.
Supporters of the bill would like to gather enough support and open debate
by Nov. 9, when the World Trade Organization meeting starts in Doha, Qatar,
said Greg Crict, spokesman for House Majority Leader Richard Armey, R-Texas.
But that's wishful thinking, said Kathy Roeder, spokeswoman for Rep. Robert
Matsui, D-Calif., who said the bill lacked support on both sides of the
aisle.
Democrats argue the bill doesn't require countries to follow international
labor and environmental standards. They are also reluctant to limit
Congress's influence on trade deals.
And there isn't enough room for horse trading by the administration either,
Roeder said. The chances of mustering support for fast-track got slimmer
because the White House has opposed a farm bill and is looking for a cap on
the appropriations bill, she said.
"They've backed themselves into a corner on everything," Roeder said.
"There's no way to horse trade out of it unless they really ramp up how much
money they're going to spend on appropriations."
Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and seven other Democrats sent a letter to Speaker
Dennis Hastert, declaring they wouldn't support the bill unless their
demands for relief to displaced airline workers and a "fiscally responsible"
economic stimulus packages were met.
"It doesn't seem like [the Republicans] have a strategy to bring it to the
floor," Roeder added.
The Christian Science Monitor
October 29, 2001, Monday
Debate revs up over fast-track trade measures
David R. Francis Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Presidential trade representative Robert Zoellick last week called for the
House of Representatives to set a date for a vote on "fast track"
legislation.
"The eyes of the world will be on Congress," he said.
But getting what is now called Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) won't be
easy. The bill would enable the White House to negotiate a global
trade-liberalizing deal or a less ambitious trade package and present it to
Congress for an up-or-down vote without any complicating amendments.
"It will be a close vote," says Harald Malmgren, a Washington trade
consultant who helped draft the first fast-track bill in 1974.
A survey of House members by CongressDaily shows 178 members publicly
undeclared or on the fence on the issue.
It's unlikely the House leadership will call a vote if it has no chance of
passage.
The White House would love to have TPA before Nov. 9, when the World Trade
Organization opens a ministerial meeting in Doha, Qatar. The goal of those
talks is to launch another global trade round such as the Kennedy Round that
Mr. Malmgren helped negotiate, or the latest, the Uruguay Round.
Earlier rounds didn't have fast track before getting going. Nor is it
essential this time, Malmgren says.
Behind the battle over TPA passage is greater uncertainty of the merits of
more free trade and international investment, especially with poor nations.
Prior to all postwar trade rounds, there were struggles between groups
striving to protect special interests and those seeing great benefits from
freer trade for the nation as a whole.
That's true again today.
But now, some analysts maintain that most Americans have been hurt
economically from past trade treaties.
For instance, economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot note that trade
liberalization in the past two decades has led to a net loss in real income
for three quarters of the American labor force lacking college degrees.
Those wages, say the Center for Economic and Policy Research economists,
have been redistributed to workers with college and advanced degrees.
Liberalized trade has also shifted income from wages generally to business
profits. Hourly wages fell as much as 12.6 percent - or as little as 1.6
percent, they maintain.
Wait a minute, says an independent task force sponsored by the Council on
Foreign Relations. Since 1990, as the US has become significantly more open
to trade, real average household incomes have grown by at least 10 percent.
Indeed, the poorest fifth of Americans has enjoyed slightly bigger gains
than the richest fifth, figures the group co-chaired by Kenneth Duberstein,
President Reagan's chief of staff, and Robert Rubin, Treasury Secretary
under President Clinton.
A similar debate has been going on between economists over the impact of
trade on the world's poor.
The globalization agenda, which includes trade and international investment,
is a "scourge" on the poor, maintains a briefing paper of the Economic
Policy Institute. It has widened the gap between the rich and poor both
within and between nations on this globe.
Any gains in poverty reduction have been "relatively small," not keeping up
with inflation. The world's poorest 400 million people lived on an average
of just 78 cents a day or less in 1999, 79 cents or less in 1990 and 72
cents in 1980.
In 1980, median income in the richest 10 percent of countries was 77 times
greater than in the poorest 10 percent. This gap reached 122 times by 1999.
"It's a clash of [economic] ideology versus experience," charges one author
of the paper, Robert Scott. "The economics profession would like to keep its
eyes closed to the facts."
On the other side, World Bank economist David Dollar calculates that there
are 200 million fewer extremely poor people on earth than there were 20
years ago.
In a paper written with colleague Aart Kraay, he finds that the world
economy grew well during the 1990s, despite the financial crisis in East
Asia. And a study of 137 countries shows that the poor benefited
proportionately from such growth - they weren't undermined by globalization.
But "good" policies - openness to trade, stable economies, moderate size of
government, strong property rights, and rule of law - don't systematically
add to the incomes of the poorest fifth.
Sorting out the contrary economic claims is hard. Columbia University
economist Donald Davis says too often the intellectual framework of a trade
study guarantees an expected result.
Sometimes the differences stem from the choice of statistics. For example,
since 1980, individual wages haven't advanced much for most Americans. But
households have done better as more family members work.
In general, trade gives Americans more choice in goods. It can boost the
nation's economy as a whole. But it hurts some Americans. And they get
little help.
Congress has a difficult balancing act ahead on the subject.
(c) Copyright 2001. The Christian Science Monitor
CongressDaily
Issue date: October 26, 2001
TRADE
Business Roundtable To Start $1M Trade Ad Campaign
Although the bill's prospects are uncertain at best, the Business
Roundtable is preparing a major new effort to pass presidential trade
negotiating authority, shelling out more than $1 million for advertising
targeted at 20 uncommitted House legislators. The BRT already has television
and radio spots in the can for the new campaign, which will begin this
weekend and extend throughout portions of the next two weeks. Depending on
the timing of a vote, the campaign could be extended, and much more cash
will be made available from the BRT's sizable kitty. "We will spend what it
takes to counter labor's message of misinformation," said one BRT official.
Indeed, the campaign is in part a direct response to recent advertising by
labor groups opposed to the legislation, and many of the BRT ads will appear
in districts targeted by the unions. Most of the 20 legislators in the BRT's
crosshairs are Democrats. Democratic support for trade negotiating authority
has been anemic so far, and many business lobbyists are now focusing on
Democrats, with the expectation that the administration will be able to keep
GOP ranks in line.
But the expenditure still could amount to a gamble. House Republican
leaders, once eager to schedule a vote on the measure, are now refusing to
say when they will put it on the floor. And labor operatives say they are
confident they can defeat it. Nevertheless, other backers of the bill are
ramping up their efforts. President Bush was set at presstime to promote
trade negotiating authority during an East Room appearance. The president
was planning to describe the trade bill, energy legislation and the economic
stimulus measure as a comprehensive package designed to bolster the economy.
And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also planning to put up a series of
radio ads touting trade negotiating authority - including Spanish
language-only
spots - according to a Chamber official.
Among the 20 legislators targeted by the BRT are Reps. Dennis Moore,
D-Kan.; Tom Sawyer, D-Ohio; Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.; Bob Etheridge,
D-N.C.; David Price, D-N.C., and Melissa Hart, R- Pa. Other districts on the
list are in California, Washington and Indiana. The BRT expects spillover
into radio and television markets not directly targeted to reach portions of
another 40 congressional districts. The buys will supplement a print
campaign that is partially underway and which is centered mainly inside the
Beltway. The BRT is also mobilizing its goTRADE advocacy network - which has
a presence in 167 districts - to visit and phone lawmakers and work the
local media. The Chamber's radio ads will also run mainly in Democratic
districts. The Chamber's Spanish language ads will emphasize that trade
negotiating authority could help secure trade agreements with countries in
Central and Latin America. The Chamber's campaign is designed to highlight
the business community's view that the legislation is essential for keeping
the United States engaged internationally. - by Keith Koffler
|
