[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21851-21852]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     FAST TRACK AND THE ENVIRONMENT

  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

[[Page 21852]]

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.

                          ____________________