THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display

[Page: H7881]  GPO's PDF
---

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DAN MILLER of Florida). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. BROWN) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the League of Conservation Voters circulated a letter urging Members to oppose the Presidential trade negotiating authority known as Fast Track, or trade promotion authority. League of Conservation Voters warned it would consider including the trade bill on its annual scorecard.

   The league has stated Fast Track would threaten hard-won environmental and public health laws and regulations. The bill would do nothing, nothing, to prevent countries from lowering their environmental standards to gain unfair economic and trade advantages over Western democracies.

   Environmental provisions must be included, Mr. Speaker, in the core text of these trade agreements. Though Fast Track supporters have repeatedly refused, these provisions must be enforced by sanctions. Simply look at how environmental and labor standards evolved in the United States. Creation of these standards did not come about because corporations wanted them. To the contrary. They arose because concerned citizens demanded change to prevent companies from abusing workers, from polluting our air and from dumping waste into our waters.

   Through free speech and the democratic process, the U.S. developed laws to protect workers and the environment. But many in the developing world do not have these privileges. In the developing world, decisions are typically made by three groups: government leaders, usually not elected; factory owners, who are often one of the same with government leaders; and Western companies.

   Would authoritarian government leaders be in favor of cleaning up the environment or expanding worker rights? I do not think so. Would local factory owners be in favor of tougher greenhouse gas emission standards? I do not think so. Would Western corporations be in favor of rules to reduce the dumping of toxic chemicals? I do not think so.

   How can the free trade lobby assume that labor and environmental standards will expand in the developing world when those who can improve the situation are the ones who profit from its abuse? Changes will only occur if there is an incentive to change, and the trend in corporate globalization, these trade agreements, provides very few incentives to do the right thing.

   If we fail to include these important provisions in trade agreements, multinational corporations will continue to see these improvements as an unnecessary expense. We cannot allow the administration to push forward on these trade agreements, such as NAFTA , that value foreign investment more than they value the American worker. We cannot give corporations the green light to disregard human rights, to disregard labor standards, to disregard environmental laws. We cannot reward nations for abusing the ideals and the values that we in this country hold dear.

   The greatest abuse of our principles is not really what is being left out but what has been put in these trade agreements: something called the investor-to-state relationship establishing chapter 11 of NAFTA . Through chapter 11 , private corporations, for the first time ever, can sue a foreign government and overturn health and safety laws passed by a democracy.

   Now, U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick has committed to including that same chapter 11 in Fast Track. Not only can laws be overturned, but taxpayers in that nation are also liable for damages if a NAFTA tribunal rules a law or regulation causes an unfair barrier to trade. Understand this point: corporate trade lawyers can effectively repeal a nation's public health or an environmental law that was enacted through a democratic process behind closed doors.

   Corporations have been quick to capitalize on chapter 11 . We have seen it in Canada, we have seen it in the United States, we have seen it with Mexican, American and Canadian corporations. As power shifts from democratically elected governments to corporations, many more corporations will attempt to strike down environmental laws, to weaken food safety laws, to eliminate consumer-protection statutes.

   Chapter 11 's provisions suggest that when one country's public health laws collide with a foreign corporation's profits, then public health usually loses, time after time after time. Every single time in the World Trade Organization and almost every single time under NAFTA .

   Americans need to know whether the Bush administration believes that corporations deserve to trample on laws that protect our health and protect our environment. Congress should not allow chapter 11 to be incorporated into Fast Track. We need to protect the laws that we in this democratic body, and State legislatures in their democratic bodies, and city councils in their democratic bodies have created.

   More and more Members of Congress are joining the ranks calling for trade agreements that are not rammed down the public's throats and that in fact respond to true social and economic ramifications across the globe. We need to press for U.S. trade policy with provisions that do, indeed, protect the environment, not weaken environment and public health laws. We need to press for provisions that promote the advancement of stronger environmental standards. We need to press for provisions that can be effectively enforced. Fast Track, Mr. Speaker, is not the answer.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display