Also available as a PDF (47 kb)

As part of its drive to expand NAFTA to the entire Western Hemisphere, the Bush administration is working hard to get "Fast Track" trade negotiating authority. Fast Track would prevent Congress from changing, or even having extended debate on, any trade agreement negotiated by the president. Such an arrangement would reduce the role of Congress in trade negotiations to little more than a rubber stamp. As Fast Track shows, the free trade" agenda is as much about governance--who will make the rules in the new global economy--as it is about trade. Fast Track is simply undemocratic. In recent years, Fair Trade forces twice defeated President Clinton's Fast Track requests. By educating our communities about the failures of free trade, we can do it again.

Fast Track Would Remove the Checks and Balances of Governance

While the U.S. Constitution gives the president exclusive authority for managing "relations with foreign sovereigns," it invests in Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." This design is one of the many checks and balances built into the Constitution to prevent one branch of government from having absolute control of a vital policy area. Fast Track would destroy that balance by delegating Congress' constitutional authority over trade policy to the White House. Fast Track would prevent Congress from amending trade deals and would allow the president not only to draft agreements, but also to craft any legislation needed to bring U.S. laws into compliance with such agreements. Essentially, it gives the president the ability to legislate without having to listen to citizen input. By concentrating even more power in the executive branch, Fast Track takes our government in an undemocratic direction.

Fast Track Would Limit Public Debate on Trade Issues

If Congress approves Fast Track, our representatives and senators will limit themselves to having no more than 20 hours to debate any trade deal brought before them for ratification and to vote on the issue within 60 days of when it is introduced. Those limits would curtail public discussions about trade policy. Extended debates on Capitol Hill give ordinary citizens the chance to influence public policy by expressing their opinions to their elected representatives. If trade legislation is forced to speed through Congress, that will limit the opportunities for careful deliberation on the merits and weaknesses of complex trade agreements. Because it curtails discussion, Fast Track is fundamentally undemocratic.

Fast Track Would Help Corporations Write the Rules for Trade

Already, corporations are given a back stage pass to trade negotiations through the U.S. Trade Representatives' Industry Sector Advisory Committees. For example, more than 300 business representatives have been helping to write the rules for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) while civil society groups are left in the dark. By forcing Congress to have a yes-or-no vote on trade deals and preventing Congress from making any changes to such agreements, Fast Track puts even more power in the hands of the corporate rule-makers. Corporate representatives will know they can craft deals that suit their agenda without worrying about any counter-influence from public interest groups.

Fast Track Takes Us in the Wrong Direction

The Bush Administration says it wants Fast Track to pursue a new round of trade talks under the WTO and speed up negotiations for expanding NAFTA to the entire hemisphere through the FTAA. But the rules imposed by the WTO and NAFTA are a disaster for working families, the environment and human rights protections. Such agreements are spurring a global "race to the bottom" that harms the majority of people while mostly benefiting transnational corporations. Take, for example, Mexico, where, according to the Mexican government, wages in the country's manufacturing sector have fallen 10 percent since NAFTA went into effect. Since NAFTA began, the ordinary Mexican's purchasing power has decreased 39 percent and the number of people living in "severe" poverty (surviving on less than $2 a day) has increased by 4 million, according to the United Nations. Mexico's environment has also suffered: In the Mexican state of Guerrero, 40 percent of the forests have been lost in the last eight years, and when peasants tried to fight the massive clearcutting there they were jailed. When we're headed in the wrong direction, getting on a fast track is the last thing we should do.

Fast Track is an Obstacle to Making Trade Clean, Green and Fair

According to a recent University of Maryland poll, 78 percent of Americans believe that trade agreements should include protections for the environment and labor rights. But Fast Track, by limiting citizen involvement in making trade policy, will render that demand meaningless. If we are to achieve socially responsible and environmentally sustainable commerce, we need more public participation in the decision-making process, not less.

Fast Track is Outdated

When Fast Track was first created, in the 1970s, international trade agreements dealt only with very narrow topics such as tariffs and import quotas. Today, the rules laid out by the WTO and NAFTA affect almost every aspect of our lives?from environmental regulations to food, worker safety, and banking standards. Modern corporate globalization agreements also affect how communities will be able to spend their local tax dollars and how governments can provide basic social services. The WTO and NAFTA rewrote significant sections of US laws that directly affect millions of Americans. Clearly, Congress' delegation of its trade authority is unwise given the broad areas of law impacted by today's commercial treaties.

Resistance to Fast Track is Building

Twice during the Clinton Administration Fair Trade forces around the country mobilized to put pressure on their representatives to defeat the president's Fast Track requests. Those hard-won victories were made possible because public opinion is on our side. According to a poll by a professional polling agency, 57 percent of Americans oppose the idea of Fast Track. That sentiment comes in part from skepticism about the "free trade" agenda in general. As the continuing protests against corporate globalization have shown, a growing number of people agree that free trade is not working for the majority of the world's citizens or the environment.

There is a Better Way

The Bush Administration likes to say that it can't make policy without Fast Track. But Fast Track has only been used five times since it was first created. And, in any case, there are better ways to create trade policy. We need a democratic process that ensures that trade negotiators are accountable to public opinion when making these important choices. A new "democratic track" on trade policy would preserve Congress's legislative role and strengthen public participation. Enforceable labor and environmental standards must be included in future agreements. Workers rights and the environment must be given the same or tighter protection as international investors. And trade rules must never undercut public health, safety and environmental laws.