Defenders Tells Senator Baucus "Go Slow on Fast Track"
"Senator Baucus has been quite outspoken on the need for meaningful environmental protections in trade agreements, and we hope he will continue that legacy as chair of the Senate Finance Committee," said William Snape, vice president for law and litigation at Defenders of Wildlife. "Fast track is a bad deal for citizens and ecosystems around the world if we do not insist upon concrete and mandatory objectives for U.S. negotiators; to get it right, we are urging Senator Baucus to go slow on fast track."
Defenders’ letter cites several statements by Baucus this year that indicate he intends to take a measured approach to fast track trade negotiating authority. As ranking Democrat on the committee, the senator said he will demand real environmental protections as a part of any trade agreement or fast track trade legislation. Baucus took the lead on incorporating ecological principles into ongoing negotiations for a new U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement.
He also noted that fast track authority, which cedes a tremendous share of the Congress’ constitutional authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, "is a truly extraordinary grant of authority."
Fast track negotiating authority typically binds Congress to a single yes or no vote on a completed trade agreement, without opportunity for amendment or improvement.
The letter also outlined steps to increase the openness and democratic operation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which now operates largely in secret to pass judgement on the trade practices of member nations. Defenders also called on Baucus to work for provisions in fast track bills and in the resulting trade agreements "helping farmers to improve their environmental practices, not forcing them to abandon sustainability in order to make a living."
Text of the letter follows this release.
###
June 7, 2001
Hon. Max
Baucus
United States Senate
511 Hart Building
Washington, D.C.
20510
Re: Fast Track and the FTAA
Dear Senator Baucus:
As ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, you spoke powerfully about the need for trade agreements to include strong environmental provisions and about the impossibility of passing fast track legislation that does not address environmental concerns in a meaningful way. Defenders of Wildlife has appreciated your leadership in this regard. We urge you to continue that leadership in your new role as Committee Chairman, and to hold fast to your pledge that you will "vote against fast track trade negotiating authority, and work to defeat it, unless labor and environmental issues are meaningfully addressed." (Feb. 6, 2001)
Like you, Defenders believes that "we are at a critical juncture in trade policy." (Jan. 11, 2001) And like you, we believe that there can and should be little advancement of the U.S. trade agenda unless that agenda is reshaped to reflect the interests and social and environmental goals of all Americans, not just multinational business interests. We applaud your stance that "there will be no grant of fast track authority" until such a new trade consensus is achieved. (Mar. 19, 2001) We also applaud your leadership in incorporating ecological principles into a new U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement.
We agree with you that fast track legislation, in which Congress would cede all or part of its Constitutionally- mandated power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, "is a truly extraordinary grant of authority." (Mar. 19, 2001) Such an extraordinary step cannot be undertaken lightly or quickly; it must proceed, if at all, with a deliberateness and care worthy of its gravity. And so we urge you, in your capacity as Chairman, to go slow on fast track! We urge you to hold hearings throughout the country, to hear the views and concerns of workers, environmentalists and small farmers on trade issues. And we urge you to ensure that those concerns are taken into account in the development of new trade policy. We will hold you to your pledge to work to defeat any fast track bill that fails to do so in a meaningful way.
In the environmental context, Defenders believes that fast track legislation must be rejected unless it provides concrete and mandatory negotiating objectives to ensure that new trade agreements do not undermine existing environmental standards or prevent the development of new standards.
We are opposed to trade agreements that grant foreign investors unlimited rights to attack environmental standards simply because they reduce public profits, and we will oppose any fast track bill that does not expressly prohibit such grants, or strictly limit them to cases of direct expropriations of property. We will also oppose any fast track bill that does not require U.S. trade negotiators to protect the Pelly Amendment, the Lacey Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and other U.S. laws that authorize the use of trade measures against countries that undermine international conservation agreements and against products that are produced in an environmentally harmful manner.
We further expect a fast track bill to set out clear and strong negotiating objectives for increasing transparency and democracy at the WTO, and ensuring transparency and democracy in new trade agreements. We will actively oppose any fast track bill that does not require the timely release of negotiating texts and wider public consultations on U.S. policy objectives for specific agreements. Finally, we will oppose any fast track bill that does not require comprehensive environmental assessments for every new trade agreement. We ask that you do the same.
Defenders of Wildlife recognizes that many trade agreements are undertaken in the hopes of expanding agricultural markets and helping to address the crisis in farm communities throughout rural America. But trade liberalization is more a cause of the farm crisis than a cure. Most trade agreements are designed to benefit the few huge, multinational agribusinesses that buy and sell commodities on global markets, not the thousands of small farmers that sell to those businesses. The need to grow crops at the lowest possible price to compete on a global market puts significant pressure on farmers not to use sustainable farming practices–an outcome that is bad for both the farmers and the environment. Our country should be helping farmers to improve their environmental practices, not forcing them to abandon sustainability in order to make a living. To ensure the health of our planet and the future of farm communities, the United States should be working to raise environmental standards in other countries, not lowering standards here. Fast track legislation should include negotiating objectives that advance that goal.
We note with dismay that the current draft of the FTAA chapter on investment does precisely the opposite. The proposed FTAA follows the NAFTA model, permitting private investors to sue governments to overturn environmental standards. Instead of raising foreign environmental standards to level the playing field, the current draft would let foreign investors lower standards here. If this flawed approach is replicated in the FTAA, the farm crisis will continue, and critical environmental standards will be weakened or changed under the guise of recouping lost investment. We ask you to work to avoid both outcomes.
Thank you for considering our views on this important matter. We look forward to our continued work together as you assume your new responsibilities.
Sincerely,
WilliamJ. Snape, III
Vice President
for Law
Contact(s):
Cat Lazaroff, (202) 772-3270