"Unprecedented" is a word being thrown around in discussion of the Fast Track bill, scheduled for what now looks to be a cliff-hanger vote in the House on Thursday. But as several lawmakers and watchdog groups have pointed out, one need look no further than NAFTA Chapter 11 for some ugly forecasts of what's to come if the fast-track legislation -- H.R. 3005 -- is passed.
NAFTA's Chapter 11 investment rules have allowed the Canadian-based Methanex corporation, for instance, to sue the United States for $1 billion because of a California law that phases out MTBE, a gas additive and carcinogen found to be contaminating the state's water. And this is only one of 15 cases that companies in the three NAFTA countries have pursued, with claims totaling over $13 billion.
NAFTA panels settle Chapter 11 disputes behind closed doors; even the judge's identity may be withheld. Losers have no recourse to appeal or consideration in U.S. courts, so that foreign investors may circumvent state and even federal laws on issues ranging from ecology to product safety.
California state senator Sheila Kuehl expressed alarm over fast tracking in an October 23 LA Times editorial, citing her "face to face" experiences with the consequences of NAFTA and its Chapter 11 proceedings.
"The current debate," Kuehl writes, "is not a conflict between free trade and protectionism. The real battle is over the legitimacy of, and need for, regulatory balance, including regulation to protect ecosystems, human health, product safety, local security and traditional objectives of democratic governance."
Twenty California house members have authored a joint letter urging their fellow lawmakers to oppose the Thomas bill, warning that it "fails to address the threats to domestic environmental and public safety laws already posed by such investment rules in NAFTA Chapter 11." The pending legislation would enshrine Chapter 11 in future trade accords.
For further details, see Public Citizen's fast-track information page.
