|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Fast Track Update |
Current rating: 0 |
by Michael Dolan
Email: mdolan (nospam) citizen.org (unverified!) |
02 Oct 2001
|
It's bad, it's back, it's Fast Track.
Follow the link below back to Madison IMC, where there are a number of articles linked back to the original story. ML |
THOMAS: A BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE IS NEITHER
Dear Democratic Colleague:
Yesterday, Chairman Thomas released a summary of a proposal for renewed fast track/trade promotion authority (TPA). The proposal is entitled A Bipartisan Compromise. In addition, you may have seen repeated press reports that Chairman Thomas may schedule a mark up of this legislation as early as next week.
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a brief update and our perspective, since the House is not scheduled to be in session until late Tuesday. We expect to get more detailed information to you next week, including our comprehensive proposal.
First, we urge you not to reach a conclusion with respect to the purported bipartisan compromise until we have had the opportunity to discuss with you our proposal, which, we believe, holds the prospect for broad and true bipartisan support.
Second, Committee Democrats have been discussing the key issues of fast track/TPA. Those conversations will continue next Tuesday, upon our return. Bringing up a fast track bill at this time would disrupt the current bipartisan approach to legislation, particularly when the Democratic leadership on the Committee has not been consulted in the development of Chairman Thomas proposal. Further, we are concerned over the prospect of a mark up when we have yet to see an actual legislative proposal.
Third, based just on the summary released by Chairman Thomas, we have significant concerns with the so-called compromise in each of three key areas:
In terms of labor standards, the proposal would provide only that a country enforce its own law there is no requirement that a country's law include any of the five core ILO standards. The proposal treats achievement of ILO core standards as essentially a rhetorical objective, addressed in the lower tier of negotiating goals.
In terms of environmental protection, the proposal does not address key problems in the area of investment (while ensuring effective investor protections) or provide that concrete steps be taken to reconcile Multilateral Environmental Agreements with trade agreements.
With regard to the role of Congress, the proposal calls only for more consultations; there is no attempt actually to provide a meaningful opportunity for Congress to be involved at key junctures during the negotiating process more essential than ever in light of the increasing importance of trade and the growing number of traditionally domestic issues implicated.
These points are illustrative. Many other important issues, including agriculture, services, electronic commerce and trade remedies need to be addressed. A number of these areas are not even covered by the summary. These and other points and concerns will be among those under discussion when we meet on the Committee next Tuesday and with all of you thereafter.
We look forward to working with you at that time.
Sincerely,
Charles B. Rangel Ranking Democrat
Sander M. Levin Member of Congress
Robert T. Matsui Member of Congress |
See also:
http://madison.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=1212&group=webcast
|
