[Imc-newsroom] Fwd: FAST TRACK IS MOVING!!!!

[Peter Miller]

Fast Track passage means FTAA passage and WTO expansion.  It's not an easy 
thing to think about post-Sept. 11, but that's what Bush and the corporate 
lobby are counting on.

Johnson is going to vote for it (he co-sponsored it!), but it won't hurt to 
make calls.  I'll try to find out what else we can do.

-Peter


>Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:03:15 -0400
>From: "Timi Gerson" <tgerson at citizen.org>
>
>*** Fast Track mark-up on October the 5th *** Possible floor-vote next 
>week ***Call Congress toll-free 1-800-393-1082 and tell YOUR Member to 
>vote NO on Fast Track***
>
>Despite the incredible inappropriateness of pushing such a controversial 
>issue after the tragic events of September 11th, Rep Thomas (R-CA) has 
>decided that he wants to try to push Fast Track through Congress no matter 
>what.
>
>Today at a press conference,  Thomas unveiled his Fast Track bill, tried 
>to label it as a bi-partisan measure, and scheduled it for a mark-up in 
>the Ways and Means committee on this coming Friday, October the 5th (a 
>"mark up" is when a bill gets voted on in the relevant committee clearing 
>the way for a floor vote).
>
>This is no bi-partisan bill - instead it is a lite-version of the truly 
>offensive GOP Crane Fast Track bill. There are a few Democratic 
>co-sponsors - but these are Members who would have supported the original 
>Crane bill and not some moderate Democrats. In fact, the vast majority of 
>Democrats are disgusted with Thomas for his crass political profiteering 
>and lack of bi-partisanship (see attached Dear Colleague letter from some 
>leading Democrats in the House).
>
>Thanks to the great work done by people like yourself around the country - 
>we have been able to stall of Fast Track. Now Thomas is playing a game of 
>chicken. The Fast Track bill can only get momentum if there is a 
>perception that there is no cost for moving forward. We need to do a 
>sudden pile on to any and all swing members and also to Speaker Hastert. 
>Thomas is going to have a hard time pushing his bill through - especially 
>if we all join forces and start calling our Members of Congress NOW to 
>tell them to oppose Fast Track. The AFL-CIO has put up a toll-free number 
>to the Capitol: 1-800-393-1082 (you just have to enter your zip-code to 
>get connected to your Member), and we need your help in making the call 
>and giving that number out to friends/family/co-workers/neighbors and 
>having them make the calls as well.
>
>Rep. Thomas is talking about a possible floor-vote next week and we will 
>keep you updated with the latest information.
>
>Some talking points:
>
>-> This is no time to bring up a controversial and divisive issue like 
>Fast Track. Congress needs to focus on issues that unites it, as well as 
>the responses to the terrorist attacks.
>-> Fast Track will set the terms of U.S. trade and investment policies for 
>the next 5-10 years and needs a thoughtful and thorough debate.
>-> There is nothing bi-partisan about Thomas' proposal, and does not 
>address in any meaningful way the real negative impacts that trade 
>agreements like NAFTA and the
>     WTO have had on jobs, the environment and our family farmers.
>
>After you have called your own Member, call Speaker of the House Hastert 
>and tell him how much you appreciate how he has been working to create a 
>bi-partisan spirit in the House and that you hope that he will oppose this 
>crass attempt by Thomas to break it. You can reach his office in DC at 
>202-225-2976 (or call the toll-free number and enter the zip-code for 
>Hastert's district: 60510).
>
>If you have any questions about how a particular Member is leaning on Fast 
>Track, please give us a call at 202-546-4996 (ask for any member of the 
>Global trade Watch field team) or e-mail mstrand at citizen.org. For more 
>information about Fast Track, please visit www.tradewatch.org. If you want 
>to read the Thomas Fast Track bill go to: 
>http://waysandmeans.house.gov/fullcomm/107cong/tpa/tpa.pdf
>
>Now - let's go to work!
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>National Journal's CongressDaily
>Wednesday, October 3, 2001
>TRADE
>Thomas Unveils Trade Negotiating Authority Proposal
>       Ways and Means Chairman Thomas this afternoon formally unveiled a
>proposal to renew presidential trade negotiating authority, and announced
>his committee will mark up the legislation Friday. Thomas said he had
>recieved no assurances from House Speaker Hastert that the bill would be
>debated, but said he believes that if the committee approves a bill it will
>be brought up. Ways and Means ranking member Charles Rangel of New York and
>other Democrats on the panel have cautioned against bringing up the
>contentious issue at this time. However, Thomas and Majority Leader Armey
>have said they believe support for restoring what they call trade promotion
>authority has grown considerably.
>       On hand this afternoon for the announcement were Democratic Reps.
>Calvin Dooley of California, John Tanner of Tennessee and James Moran of
>Virginia, and Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Philip Crane,
>R-Ill., even though he has opposed the linkage of environmental and labor
>standards to trade. Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., who has also worked with
>Thomas on the bill, was not present. The Business Roundtable has already
>praised the bill as a "fair and bipartisan compromise." - by Stephen Norton
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>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
>
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
>without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
>included information for research and educational purposes.
>
>Margrete Strand Rangnes
>Field Director
>Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
>215 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Washington DC, 20003 USA
>mstrand at citizen.org & www.tradewatch.org
>Ph: + 202-454-5106, Fax: + 202-547 7392
>
>To subscribe to our MAI Mailing List, send an e-mail to 
>mstrand at citizen.org, to unsubscribe, send an e-mail to mstrand at citizen.org.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>------
>For more information on current fair trade issues, visit 
>www.tradewatch.org   If you have received this message in error, we 
>apologize.  To be removed from the list, send an email to 
>mstrand at citizen.org with the text "unsubscribe orglist <your email address>."