[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 170 (Monday, December 10, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2245-E2246]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            BIPARTISAN TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, December 6, 2001

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3005, 
the so-called Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority legislation, also 
known as ``fast track,'' proposed by Ways and Means Committee Chairman 
Bill Thomas.
  While I believe deeply in the benefits of free trade, this 
shortsighted bill ignores the need to protect workers and the 
environment in our international trade agenda. It also jeopardizes the 
environmental, health, and safety laws here in the United States.
  I have supported a number of trade agreements negotiated by 
Presidents in the past, but fast track is unique. As the mechanism that 
authorizes the President to negotiate trade agreements, it is the one 
chance Congress gets to direct the objectives and the scope of the U.S. 
trade agenda for the next seven years. It is the primary opportunity 
for Congress to design trade goals that reflect American ideals for 
human rights, labor rights, and environmental protection.
  It is outrageous that recent trade agreements have given foreign 
companies veto power over our regulatory authority at the local, state, 
or federal level. I voted against the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA), in part because Chapter 11 of the agreement gave 
foreign companies the right to sue the United States for trade-related 
financial losses. The result has been devastating to California and the 
Thomas bill would allow the same provisions to be placed in future 
agreements.
  It is under Chapter 11, for example, that a Canadian corporation is 
suing the United States seeking $970 million in compensation because of 
California's decision to phase-out MTBE, a toxic gasoline additive that 
leaked from pipelines and storage tanks, poisoning California water 
supplies and rendering them unusable.
  In my district, the City of Santa Monica faced MTBE contamination of 
its drinking water supply and has had to import more than 80% of its 
drinking water. Sadly, this story has been repeated in other parts of 
the state, as well as other parts of the country. The Canadian company, 
which is trying to prevent the phase-out of MTBE, is seeking $970 
million in compensation, asserting that California's phase-out impeded 
its business interests and profits. The case is pending before a closed 
door NAFTA tribunal with no possibility of consideration or appeal in 
U.S. courts.
  I strenuously object to any proposal that would subjugate the health 
and safety of American citizens to the profit goals of international 
corporations. I strongly believe that the U.S. should not be allowed to 
undermine the health, safety, and environment laws of other countries 
either. I have opposed efforts by U.S. trade negotiators who have acted 
on behalf of special interest groups to challenge foreign laws, such as 
those designed to protect food supplies curb smoking, and increase 
access to life-saving HIV/AIDS medication in developing countries.
  For example, U.S. trade negotiators, acting on behalf of the 
pharmaceutical companies, have tried to use international trade law to 
challenge governments in sub-Saharan Africa that are struggling to 
provide affordable medicines to people suffering from the AIDS 
epidemic. In southern Africa as many as 1 in 4 are suffering from AIDS, 
more than twelve million children have been orphaned by the disease, 
and the overall rate of infection is eight times higher than the rest 
of the world. Yet, the Thomas bill completely ignores this crisis and 
would allow the trade challenges to continue.
  Furthermore, the Thomas bill would direct the President to challenges 
prescription drug pricing systems that have been implemented in Canada, 
Europe, and other countries to keep prescription drug prices from 
spiraling out of control. In fact, it may even jeopardize efforts here 
in the United States to provide affordable Medicare prescription drug 
benefits to seniors.
  And in addition to possibly putting our public health and safety in 
jeopardy, the bills shows complete indifference toward labor rights. 
Meekly suggesting that countries should enforce their own labor laws, 
the bill only promotes the perpetuation of weak labor laws that often 
allow the exploitation of child and slave labor, and discriminatory 
treatment and harassment of labor activists in violation of the five 
core standards of the International Labor Organization (ILO).
  If we want to work toward a progressive world trading system, we 
should be working for a world economy that lives up to higher standards 
instead of sinking to lower ones.
  We should be expanding and updating our negotiating agenda to reflect 
the dramatic changes that have taken place in just the last few years 
since the previous Fast Track expired in 1994. There are now new items 
on the table at the WTO regarding intellectual property, antitrust law, 
investment rules, electronic commerce, product/food labeling, and 
technology transfer. The United States has set new precedents by 
including environmental and labor standards in the trade agreement with 
Jordan and trade expansion measures with countries in the Caribbean and 
Africa. We should not be prevented from pursuing these provisions in 
future trade agreements.
  We should be insisting on more Congressional influence and oversight 
over the trade agenda. Unfortunately, the Thomas bill would minimize 
our role and stifle any meaningful opportunity for Congress to revoke 
fast track if the President violates or ignores key negotiating 
objectives.

[[Page E2246]]

  The bill also does nothing to increase transparency of the trade 
negotiations, deliberations, and rulings veiled in secrecy. It fails to 
advocate the publication of negotiating texts, or address the critical 
need for changes to dispute settlement mechanisms that are not even 
open to the submission of amicus brief by non-governmental entities 
that have an interest in the deliberations.
  The Democratic substitute offered by Mr. Rangel and Mr. Levin, which 
the Republican leadership unfairly blocked him from offering, seriously 
looks at ways to address all of these matters. It would take advantage 
of the scarce opportunity fast track offers for Congress to shape the 
future of a world trade system with leadership from the United States 
on issues important to workers and the environment.
  The bill calls for specific rules to ensure that it would not be a 
trade violation for a country to enforce a Multilateral Environmental 
Agreement (MEA), such as the treaty prohibiting trade in endangered 
species. It would also make progress on the issue of investor 
provisions by clarifying that investors protection rules cannot be used 
to undermine legitimate health, safety, and environmental laws.
  In addition, the Rangel-Levin bill would explicitly clarify the right 
of WTO members to adopt measures necessary to respond to national 
emergencies like the HIV/AIDS epidemic by increasing access to 
essential medicines, and set at least some limitations on challenges to 
prescription drug price containment.
  Moreover, the bill would provide a much stronger role for Congress by 
providing a structural biennial review of ongoing negotiations, and a 
process for the House to bring a resolution rescinding trade promotion 
authority to the floor for a vote if it is supported by at least one-
third of the House.
  At a time when we have the chance to move a progressive U.S. trade 
agenda forward, I regret that the Republican leadership squandered the 
opportunity to work with Democrats to achieve legislation that enjoyed 
strong bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
against the Thomas bill and in support of the Rangel-Levin alternative.

                          ____________________