Have Questions About Kerry And NAFTA?

[DrFunkenstein]

Dear (Decision Maker),

I am writing to ask you to support the Kerry Amendment to FAST TRACK. The Baucus-Grassley Trade Bill is not good enough. I would appreciate your support for this amendment. Specifically, the amendment will:

1. Ensure that foreign investors don't get greater rights than US citizens or investors. We need to make sure that the US Constitution is the benchmark for investor treatment.

2. Clarify the definition of expropriation in future trade deals to conform with the US Constitution and recent US Supreme Court rulings.

3. Protect US laws on public health, safety and the environment from attack by investor-state lawsuits.

4. Ensures that minimum treatment under international law is defined in a way that follows the US Constitution. We don't want to follow that of some other country.

5. Require diplomatic check. Before a corporation could go into one of the secret trade tribunals to sue for taxpayer compensation (avoiding the domestic court system), they should have to check in with their own government.

This amendment will be voted upon soon. I urge you to vote for it and keep the problems that are already happening with NAFTA Chapter 11 from happening under future trade agreements.

Sincerely,
Your Name
Your Address

http://www.unionvoice.org/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=2005

(Nader-founded) Public Citizen:

"The amendment was a modest reform that guaranteed much-needed changes in the NAFTA Chapter 11 investment model in future trade agreements.

Under the model, foreign investors may file a claim in secret NAFTA tribunals to seek compensation when government public interest regulations in any way diminish the value of their investment.

In doing so, the amendment would have instructed U.S. trade negotiators to ensure that future investor provisions do not grant foreign investors rights beyond what the U.S. Constitution provides."

http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/?votenum=121&chamber=S&congr...

The Kerry Amendment to the Baucus-Grassley fast-track trade bill would have limited expansion of NAFTA-style corporate lawsuits to more countries.

Under NAFTA, foreign corporations gained broad powers to sue US taxpayers for financial damages if our environmental, health, or land protection laws interfere with their businesses.

The Kerry Amendment would have ensured that foreign investors have no greater rights than US citizens under the US Constitution.

http://www.sierraclub.org/votewatch/2002/kerry.asp

WASHINGTON - May 21 - Friends of the Earth expressed disappointment in the loss of an amendment to trade legislation that would have protected environmental standards from foreign investor lawsuits. The amendment, offered by Sen. John Kerry, sought to address concerns with investment rules like NAFTA's Chapter 11 that allow foreign corporations to bring suits against environmental laws and regulations.

"By voting against the Kerry amendment, the Senate has paved the way for more backdoor corporate assaults on laws that protect our air, water and land," said David Waskow, Friends of the Earth's trade policy coordinator. "The Senate should be protecting the health and safety of Americans, not watching the backs of wealthy polluters who make big campaign contributions."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0521-13.htm

"The current Fast Track bill is an environmental nightmare," said Carroll Muffett, director of international programs for Defenders of Wildlife. "The Kerry Amendment would have fixed one of the biggest problems with it. Without Kerry, Fast Track is just a license for unchecked environmental destruction."

http://www.charitywire.com/charity51/03074.html

Unlike the amendment sponsored by Sen. John Kerry, the Baucus-Grassley Amendment does not set the U.S. Constitution as the benchmark for the scope of property rights available to foreign investors in the United States.

The Kerry Amendment would repair the investment model of NAFTA. Under the Kerry Amendment, a foreign investor would be required to demonstrate that the policy in question was enacted primarily with discriminatory intent against foreign investors or investments.

The Kerry Amendment is based on U.S. Supreme Court rulings on expropriation in that it would guarantee that future trade agreements improve upon the NAFTA model and restrict such investment protection actions to only those cases where government action causes a physical invasion of property or the denial of all economic or productive use of that property.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0515-04.htm

[feistydem]

1. Too bad it didn't get through.

I hope he'll push for this amendment again as president. NAFTA needs to be fixed.

Thanks for posting it.

[DjTj]

2. After it failed, Kerry still voted for Fast Track; Edwards didn't

Kerry and Edwards both voted in favor of this amendment:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00121

But when voting for the final bill (without the Kerry amendment), Kerry voted Yea and Edwards voted Nay:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00207

Did Edwards care more about Kerry's amendment than Kerry did?