THE PRESIDENT WILL INTRODUCE FAST TRACK THIS WEEK!
he wants the Congress to give him authority to negotiate trade pacts
(starting with NAFTA expansion and eventually the MAI)
in a way that excludes congressional participation in the process (limited
debate, no amendments, up-or-down vote).
Call Your Representative or his/her "Trade Staffer" ASAP.
CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD******1-888-723-5246
Declare Your Opposition to NAFTA Expansion and "Fast Track"
Here's three talking points:
1) NAFTA has created new problems.
Our food supply is less safe. Due to the increase in border traffic
in meat and produce, more food with dangerous pesticide residues or
bacteria is getting to our kitchens. Less than 1 percent of the imports of
fruit and vegetables coming from Mexico is inspected at the border.
The diminished inspection rates along our border has resulted in an
unprecedented flow of illegal drugs. Along our southern border, the drugs
and uninspected foods are coming across in over-large, often unsafe trucks,
which have increased access to U.S. highways under NAFTA.
2) None of the promises of NAFTA's supporters have been fulfilled.
Instead of creating jobs, as the pro-"free trade" corporate lobbyists
predicted, NAFTA is responsible for the loss of nearly half-a-million U.S.
jobs.
Instead of cleaning up the environment along the U.S.-Mexico border,
water and air pollution have increased. A massive increase of industries
has pushed the border ecology to the breaking point.
3) "Fast track" authority for the President is unnecessary and outdated.
The Administration regularly brags that they have completed over 200
trade
agreements -- but never mentions that only two (NAFTA and GATT) -- needed
"fast track."
It made more sense when Nixon created it to deal with the Japanese on
bilateral, sector-intensive (e.g., autos, steel) issues. But today, so
many issues -- labor rights, environmental protection, food safety -- are
tied up in these multilateral deals, Congress should take a more
meaningful, balanced role in the formulation of our trade policy.
The delegation of congressional authority to regulate foreign
commerce, and craft and ratify treaties, is illogical in the global
economy.
Under "fast track," Congress abdicates to the President its power to
thoroughly review or fix bad trade deals.
*******Instead of EXPANDING NAFTA we should be FIXING IT!*******
At Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, we know that when you're headed in
the wrong direction, a fast-track is the last thing you need.
That number again: 1-888-723-5246
It is urgent that you call your congress member this week.
Keep calling until s/he or the Trade L.A. (legislative aide) writes down
your name and address in the district and allows you to make all three of
the important foregoing points. AND you must get others to do this too.
Please distribute widely.
**************************************************************************
/s/ Mike Dolan, Field Director, Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen
Join the Global Trade Watch list server. We will keep you up to date on
trade policy and politics. To subscribe, send this message: "SUBSCRIBE
TW-LIST" [followed by your name, your organizational affiliation and the
state in which you live] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Then check out our web-site ---> www.citizen.org/pctrade
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAST TRAK UPDATE FROM LABR.PARTY NEWSGROUP
I'm glad to see interest in this topic. A quick summary
of what I know about what's happening:
Clinton introduces "fast-track" legislation on Sept 10,
along with a dog-and-pony show. This legislation
gives the White House authority to negotiate new
trade agreements similar to NAFTA but not part of
NAFTA per se, and ram them through Congress with little
or no opportunity for legislators or the public to digest
and react to the contents.
As things stand, a large majority of Democrats in
Congress (2/3rds or so) will oppose this legislation,
including Reps Gephardt and Bonior in the House.
It can only pass with Republican support. The price
for this support, which Clinton will gladly pay, is the
exclusion of any possibility of labor and/or environmental
standards in the trade agreements.
The AFL-CIO is engineering various events but little
or nothing in the way of demonstrations. An exception
is a rally in front of the White House Wednesday led
by the Teamsters and including George Becker and
Ralph Nader (10 a.m. to 11 a.m.). This is the only
demo scheduled at the moment.
There is a teach-in on Capitol Hill Thursday
(1 pm to 3pm) with Members of Congress and labor
leaders will speak.
UNITE is planning some kind of outdoor 'Peoples'
Hearing' Thursday at the Capitol.
The AFL will be running advertisements around
the country, targeted at specific Members of
Congress.
In sum, there is a fair amount going on, though
obviously much more could be done.
One substantive matter: the Administration will
claim the legislation allows for labor and environmental
stipulations in trade deals. In fact, the language
in the bill in this vein is phony. It is denounced
as such by most environmental groups and all
labor unions. Moreover, polling shows that
"fast track" is opposed by a strong majority of
citizens.
Another dodge by the Clinto-crats is the promise
that human/labor rights will be pursued "later" by some
other mysterious means on a separate track. You could
call this the fast track versus the slow boat.
Besides the phony language in the bill, the White
House will be trying to buy off marginal votes in
congress by promising unrelated favors, or by
promising special deals as part of trade deals
(e.g., you vote for this and we'll stop Chilean grapes
from coming in). The Black Caucus is pretty much
against the bill, but the Hispanic caucus is more
ambivalent.
Much more detailed information can be found
on web pages of trade unions, the AFL-CIO, and
the Nader groups (particularly Public Citizen).
Fun fact: VP Al 'Buddha can you spare a dime' Gore
could barely deliver his speech to the AFL-CIO's
working women conference over heckling he
received over fast track.
This is all going to be decided in a month or two.
The longer it lingers the less chance the legislation
has of passing. Any response has to happen quickly
if it is to affect Congress; otherwise it falls into the
category of education for the long run.
As others have pointed out, this is an important
matter and one where the national machinery
of the Democratic Party (basically the White
House) is out of step with the citizenry and most
Democratic elected officials. Good reason why
we need a LP, but also (warning: political
ax-grinding ahead) a reason to forego attacks
on Dems in general in principle and focus where
the fault lies most heavily: the White House,
the GOP, and a relative handful of corporatist Dems.
I'd be happy to field any questions on this that I can,
though I'm not a trade expert.
Cheers,
MBS
===================================================
Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036
http://tap.epn.org/sawicky
Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute other than this writer.
===================================================
