Wallach on Archer's Fast Track

[MDOLAN <mdolan@citizen.org>]

  Statement By Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, 
  on Chairman Archer's Fast Track Proposal:
  
  The Archer bill is a fast track to the Stone Age strictly forbidding 
  environmental, labor, and food safety measures in trade agreements.
  
  For the first time in U.S. history presidents would be affirmatively limited 
  in even negotiating labor, food safety or environmental issues in trade 
  talks and forbidden from including most such provisions under fast track 
  legislation.  These new restrictions would continue for eight years.
  
  The Archer proposal is a radical roll-back from the fast track President's 
  Bush and Reagan each used once. (Fast track has only even been used 5 
  times.)  The Archer proposal would even require deletion of President Bush's 
  modest NAFTA environmental provisions, such as NAFTA Art. 104 which gave 
  partial protection to three environmental treaties in case of conflict under 
  NAFTA. This proposal also would forbid the provisions funding and approving 
  NAFTA's side pacts contained in the 1993 NAFTA implementing bill.
   
  If this fast track proposal is ever adopted as U.S law, the Republicans will 
  have succeeded in their crusade to eliminate environmental and labor 
  measures from U.S. trade policy.  Regardless of how the Clinton 
  Administration may try to spin this proposal, the fact that Chairman Archer 
  supports it makes clear that environmental and labor measures are newly and 
  strictly constrained. It is pathetic  that President Clinton has not opposed 
  this retrograde Republican fast track backwards.
  
  The Archer proposal tightens the Roth-Finance fast track restrictions on 
  labor, environment, human rights, religious freedom or other issues. Of 
  course the Roth-Finance fast track was more restrictive than the Clinton 
  proposal, which itself was more restrictive than the Reagan-Bush fast track.
   The more radical the bill becomes, the less likely it will win the 
  Democratic support necessary to pass.
  
  We stand with the consensus of consumer, family farm, religious, labor and 
  environmental groups  in urging Congress to vote against it.  The opposition 
  to fast track has grown considerably over the last few weeks to include 
  environmental organizations like the National Wildlife Federation and 
  Audubon whose support for NAFTA was critical to its passage in 1993.
  
  Key Aspects of Newest Archer Fast Track Proposal
  
  1.	Establishes new formal restrictions that have never before existed on a 
  president's ability to include environmental or labor issues in trade 
  policy:
  
  Eliminates the term "appropriate" from fast track germaneness test which 
  provided past presidents discretion for environmental, labor or human rights 
  in fast tracked trade bills.  Allows only measures "necessary for operation 
  or implementation of U.S. rights or obligations under such trade 
  agreements." (103(b)(3)(B) p. 19) This is an  additional further limitation 
  beyond the new constraints in the Clinton and Roth-Finance versions of fast 
  track.  Elimination of the presidential discretion provided by the 
  "appropriate" standard is a fundamental change from all past fast track.  It 
  is this  change that would require deletion of even President Bush's modest 
  NAFTA environmental provisions, such as NAFTA Article 104 giving partial 
  protection to three environmental treaties in case of conflict under NAFTA.  
  This provision would also require elimination of  the references to funding 
  and approval of NAFTA's labor and environmental side pacts included in the 
  1993 NAFTA implementation bill.
  
  The Archer bill also newly limits the President's authority to even 
  negotiate on labor or environmental or other issues not directly related to 
  trade only to those relating to "aspects of foreign government policies and 
  practices"(102(b)(7) p. 9) that limit U.S. exports with "labor, 
  environmental, health or safety policies" that "serve as disguised barriers 
  to trade" (102(b)(7)(A))  or that involve discriminatory derogations of 
  existing domestic environmental, health, safety or labor measures ... as an 
  "encouragement to gain competitive advantage..."(102(b)(7)(B) p. 10) This 
  latter provision may be the most cynical term in what is a very 
  duplicitously written proposal. It ensures that as long as a country kills 
  or weakens its environmental or labor policies in a manner equally effecting 
  domestic and foreign business interests, it is not covered. This language is 
  a subtle, but vitally important change backwards from even NAFTA's voluntary 
  provisions which requested countries not to lower standards to attract 
  investment (NAFTA 1114).  Also: countries with no existing labor or 
  environmental standards are outside of this provision. Finally, unlike 
  commercial provisions, this language only concerns government policies or 
  practices, not a government's obligation to actually enforce such policies.
  
  Finally, a new section is added requiring an additional consultation with 
  Ways and Means and Finance Committees and industry private sector advisory 
  groups (but not labor or environmental advisory groups) to obtain  special 
  permission to start negotiations under this section. (104)(2)(A)and(B) p. 
  25.)
  
  The so-called International Economic Policy Objectives including language 
  about child labor, the International Labor Organization and compatibility of 
  environmental and trade objectives are only hortatory. The final clause in 
  this section specifically excludes the issues in this section from obtaining 
  fast track coverage. (102(c) p. 10)
  
  
  2.	International standards and enforcement on intellectual property rights 
  is strengthened; Enforceable environment or labor standards forbidden.
  
  Any future U.S. trade partners must provide protection to intellectual 
  property rights at least as strong as those provided under NAFTA, 
  (102(b)(4)(A)(III) p.4) This provision sets a new international standard for 
  U.S. negotiators. That new standards must be enforced through all civil, 
  administrative and criminal penalties available. (102(b)(4)(A)(III)(iv) p.5) 
  This is the first time U.S. trade authority has called for criminal 
  enforcement of any trade provisions. This also is the first time U.S. trade 
  authority has affirmatively banned enforceable labor or environmental 
  standards in trade pacts.
  
  
  3. 	New limitations on food safety provisions in future trade pacts.
  
  The bill would reinstate highly controversial language on the level of 
  science required to prove a country's food safety measures is legitimate 
  from a trade perspective. The U.S. demanded the subjective standard of 
  "sound science" in the Archer bill be eliminated from NAFTA and GATT because 
  of its threat to U.S. food safety laws. (102(b)(6)(C)(iii) p.8)
  
  4.  	Longest extension; First attempt to "Grandfather" pacts under fast 
  track.
  
  The Archer proposal would extend for eight years and grandfather in 
  automatic fast track for NAFTA expansion to Chile and built-in GATT-WTO 
  agenda items. (106 p.33)  Such grandfathering is unique to the current fast 
  track proposals. In the past,  Congress has had the right to vote no in 60 
  days after a President requests fast track be for a specific pact.
  
  5.	No Exclusion of Fast Track for Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI)
  
  Despite demands from GOP and Democratic Members, bill does not contain 
  language necessary to guarantee MAI is excluded from fast track coverage.
  
  
  
  ****************************************************************************
   /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.