Fast Track Language

[MDOLAN <mdolan@citizen.org>]

                                  (in a week or so we'll know for sure - ed.)
  
  M E M O R A N D U M
  
  TO: CTC Colleagues
  FR: Lori Wallach
  DT: August 26, 1997
  RE: Administration-Archer Dangerous "Directly Related" Fast Track Language
  
  
  
  The Administration is planning to float the old Archer-Crane fast track 
  language ("directly related to") from last May's rejected GOP "ultimatum 
  proposal" as if it were a "new" compromise offer on environment and labor.
  
  The GOP language was quite clever: it contained a phrase stating that fast 
  track would cover labor and environmental measures "directly related to 
  trade." What this means, translated out of trade lawyerese, is:
  
  	1. Even the pathetic environmental and labor side agreements in the 
  current NAFTA would not be covered under this fast track for any future 
  expansions. We know this because Archer said so last spring when he offered 
  this proposal. We also know so because of the face value of the language: 
  fighting the general societal scourge of child labor or fighting unsafe 
  work places or funding border water projects or charging failed domestic 
  environmental enforcement killed birds in a lake in central Mexico is 
  clearly NOT "DIRECTLY" trade related.
  
  	2. This language would reaffirm that fast track covers the existing NAFTA 
  language that DIRECTLY relates to labor and environment. For instance, the 
  dreadful Technical Barriers to Trade (aka Environmental Deregulation writ 
  large) and the sickening Sanitary and Phytosanitary (aka food safety rules 
  which set pesticide standards) and the Investment Chapter 11 that makes the 
  "host" government liable to reimburse investors in the case of "civil 
  strike" (read prolonged strike, property damage by protestors) undermining 
  their investment all would be covered. But, unfortunately, they are already 
  covered under the status quo fast track language.
  
  What is really sneaky about this "directly related to" language is that it 
  can contain the words "labor and environment" and actually FURTHER NARROW 
  the coverage of fast track to be even more restrictive of our labor, 
  environmental health and their issues than the status quo.
  
  Under the current fast track language describing germanness, the clause is 
  that fast track covers what is "necessary or appropriate." The GOP want to 
  get rid of the potential grey area of "appropriate" which allows for 
  discretion for a President to slip in human rights, or labor or 
  environmental or health issues. The "directly related" language does this, 
  while allowing the appropriate language to remain for other non-germaine 
  matters, like the pork barrel deals that get pasted to fast tracked trade 
  agreements to help them pass. 
          
  You will also note that none of the other features of fast track that make 
  it impossible for Congress to hold negotiators accountable to any 
  negotiating objectives will be "fixed" in this proposal. For instance, we 
  have had labor rights as a core trade negotiating objective since the 1988 
  Omnibus Trade Act, but without some leverage in the grant of negotiating 
  authority (which fast tack clearly denies Congress), it is never achieved 
  in agreements. And, under the status quo fast track germainess test, 
  missing items cannot be objected to -- only some really out-there extra 
  items. This is why we need to alter fast track's mechanism to give Congress 
  a bigger role -- so they can ensure the direction of negotiations and the 
  contents of an agreement are acceptable BEFORE they grant it the closed 
  rule and other special treatment for congressional consideration.
  
  Several sources confirm that the Administration intends to use this 
  "directly related to" language and spin it as a major compromise victory - 
  i.e. "look! they got environment and labor in."  We need to be aware that, 
  in fact, this "directly related to" business is a roll back of major 
  proportions from the status quo fast track language, which in itself is 
  totally unacceptable to our organizations.
  
  I think we need to get some of our principles to preemptively do op-eds or 
  letters blowing up this "directly related to" nonsense before the 
  Administration has a chance to spin it to their use. Either we make them 
  try to defend it and try to explain why it is not what it is or otherwise 
  our later attacks may allow them to try to make us look unreasonable 
  because the "words" we want are there. 
  
  
  ****************************************************************************
   /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 LISTPROC@ESSENTIAL.ORG
  
  Then check out our web-site --->   www.citizen.org/pctrade
  
                         WE EDUCATE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO ORGANIZE THEM.
                         WE DON'T ORGANIZE PEOPLE IN ORDER TO EDUCATE THEM.
                                                        Fred Ross, Sr.