Recently the House of Representatives passed by one vote the Bipartisan Trade Promotion
Authority Act (Bill number H.R. 3005) which would give President Bush the unconstitutional
power to negotiate international trade agreements without any meaningful consultation with
Congress.  Known as “Fast Track”, this mechanism was devised by the Nixon Administration.

The Constitution grants the Legislative Branch of our Government the authority to negotiate
international trade agreements. In 1974, President Nixon asked Congress to grant to the
Executive Branch the authority to simply declare changes in U.S. federal law without
congressional approval based solely upon international commercial negotiations.  The first two
trade agreements passed using this “Fast Track” did not change U.S. law since they were tariff
based changes.  However, when NAFTA (1993) and the WTO (1994) agreements were passed
using “Fast Track”, they included major changes in U.S. laws including a reshaping of domestic
laws on service industries and investments.

Now President Bush is asking for “Fast Track” authority to pass the Free Trade Area of the
Americas (FTAA), a trade agreement that would extend the geographical reach of NAFTA to
include the entire western hemisphere.  This will be devastating for most people and the
environment itself.  For more info on the FTAA, see 8th Day’s Bulletin published last year at
http://www.8thdaycenter.org/021601.html  For even further details, please visit the Public
Citizen’s website at http://www.citizen.org/trade/ftaa/index.cfm

HOW TO BEAT “FAST TRACK”

Following the spring recess, the Senate will address the Fast Track legislation which was
narrowly approved by the House. We expect the Senate to pass Fast Track but in a form
decidedly different from that of the House.  This will require a conference committee of the
House and Senate to iron out their differences.  While we encourage you to let your Senator
know you oppose Fast Track, our real hope is to appeal to our representative to vote against this
bill.

ACTIONS
1. Call or visit your Representative or Senator during Spring Recess which begins March 25th.
Encourage your Senators to vote against the “Fast Track” Bill when it comes up after recess.

The main strategy, however, is to focus on your Representative.  If your Representative voted
against this bill be sure to thank them and support them. If they voted for the bill please share
with them your concerns (see ideas in sample letters below). To find out who voted for or against
this Bill visit the following web site.
http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/?votenum=481&chamber=H&congress=1071

For information on how to contact your Congressperson (e-mail, phone), go to this web address
http://www.congress.org/ and enter your zip code. Then click “info” under their photo.

For your Senators, go to http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.cfm

2. Write your Senators and Representative using your organizations letterhead if possible. (see
sample letters below)

The Honorable________, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable ________, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510

Or, copy and paste the sample letters below and send it by e-mail.

3. For more action strategies to push against “Fast Track” please visit the following site
http://www.citizen.org/trade/fasttrack/action/.

Sample Letter to UNDECIDED Members of Congress on Fast Track

Dear Senator/Representative _________,

 I am writing in opposition to the President's plan to expand the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) throughout the hemisphere under the rubric of the Free Trade Area of the
Americas (FTAA). In particular, I urge you to vote against "Fast Track" trade negotiating
authority, now called "Trade Promotion Authority" by the Bush administration.

Both President Bush and his trade representative, Robert Zoellick, have said that they need to
secure Fast Track authority from you in order to expand NAFTA. I want to suggest a couple of
reasons why you should deny the Administration this request.

First, we elected you to make trade policy. As you know, Article I, Section 8, of the U.S.
Constitution invests the Congress with the exclusive authority to "regulate Commerce with
foreign Nations." While Fast Track may have made some sense when President Nixon  invented
it, back when most U.S. trade agreements were bilateral deals between industrialized countries
dealing with specific industrial or agricultural sectors, it is an inappropriate mechanism with
which to craft the complex, multilateral agreements (like NAFTA, the WTO and the FTAA) that
the Clinton administration used it for and with which the Bush White House intends to expand
the flawed and failed NAFTA model.

This leads to my second point. When you're heading in the wrong direction, a "fast track' is the
last thing you need. Not only has NAFTA failed to live up to the advance billing of its corporate
boosters, it has created new problems unforeseen during the policy debates of 1992 and 93.
Economists estimate that half a million U.S. jobs have been lost due to NAFTA; over 300,000
workers have been certified under one narrow program -- NAFTA adjustment assistance,
administered by the Department of Labor -- as having lost their jobs directly due to NAFTA.

Similarly, the promises to clean up the environment along the U.S.-Mexican border, especially in
the maquiladora region of northern Mexico, have gone unfulfilled for over seven years now.
Meanwhile, the increased border trade has opened U.S. markets to unsafe food, U.S. cities to
increased drug traffic and U.S. highways to unsafe trucks. Further, NAFTA's investment chapter
has spawned litigation that has undermined environment and health regulations in all three
NAFTA countries; a current example is the Methanex case in which the California phase-out of
the gas additive MTBE has exposed the U.S. to nearly a billion dollars of liability to the
Canadian corporation that manufactures it.

Fast Track is an outdated model by which to craft trade policy. Given the broad range of
domestic issues like food safety that now are affected through "trade" talks, Congress and the
public needs a new way to decide U.S. international commercial policy that is appropriate to the
reality of 21st Century globalization. Fast Track was only ever used 5 times and since then
hundreds of trade deals have proved it is not necessary. What is needed is a new mechanism to
ensure that future trade agreements contain terms beneficial to most Americans. I look forward
to your response.

Sincerely,

[Your name and address]

Sample Letter for Members of Congress who SUPPORT Fast Track

Dear Representative ________________________,

As your constituent I want to take a moment to express my disappointment in your support for
granting President Bush Fast Track trade negotiating authority.

For too long, trade agreements like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization have only
benefitted the large corporations. This has led to a race-to-the-bottom where good jobs have been
eliminated and moved to sweatshops abroad, and where our environment and food-safety have
been jeopardized in the name of corporate profits. Rather than fig-leaves and empty rhetoric
about "toolboxs" with no teeth to them, we need strong and enforceable rules in trade and
investment agreements that protect our workers, our environment and our family farmers.

Representative ______________, you should have the vision to see that this kind of trade policy
is hurting our families and the environment, and I urge you to reverse your position on this
matter which is very important to voters like myself.

Sincerely,

[your name and address]

Sample Letters for Members of Congress who OPPOSE Fast Track

Dear Representative ________________________,

As your constituent I want to take a moment to thank you for the leadership and vision you have
shown by opposing Fast Track trade negotiating authority for President Bush.

For too long, trade agreements like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization have only
benefitted the large corporations. This has led to a race-to-the-bottom where good jobs have been
eliminated and moved to sweatshops abroad, and where our environment and food-safety have
been jeopardized in the name of corporate profits. Rather than fig-leaves and empty rhetoric
about "toolboxes" with no teeth to them, we need strong and enforceable rules in trade and
investment agreements that protect our workers, our environment and our family farmers.
Representative __________, I am glad that you have the vision to see that this kind of trade
policy is hurting our families and the environment, and applaud your strong stance on issues
important to your voters.

Sincerely,

[your name and address]