COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY
MINUTES
Monday, November 27, 2006
Approved 12/18/06
Members Present: Rep. Kathie Keenan, Co-chair; Sen. Ginny Lyons, Co-chair;
John Boomhover; Daniel Brush; Elliot Burg; Dana Eidsness, John Waite
Members Absent: Lawrence Bruce, Jr.
Also Present: Legislative staff, the public, and the press
Recording: CD 2006 – 6, 7, 8
Convene, Review and Approve 10/26/06 Meeting Minutes
At 9:15 a.m. Senator Lyons convened the meeting. The minutes were approved unanimously with a change in the description of “business challenges” to clarify that the Commission wanted to look broadly at business interests and development.
FAST Track Overview
Documents distributed:
· Trade Agreements: Procedure for Congressional Approval and Implementation, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Updated March 16, 2006
Al Boright, Legislative Counsel, reviewed FAST Track, referring to the CRS trade agreement document. The Report’s summary states: Trade agreements on tariff-and-nontariff barriers, including those establishing free-trade areas, must be approved and implemented by the enactment of implementing bills for the consideration of which expedited legislative procedures have been enacted. The procedures, initially referred to as “fast track” and more recently as “trade authorities procedures,” provide for mandatory introduction and consideration of an implementing bill with deadlines for individual legislative stages, prohibit any amendments, and require an up-or-down vote. Fast Track expires July 1, 2007 and will come up for reauthorization in Congress. Many commentators expect that Fast Track will not be approved in its current form.
The Commission posed several questions:
If there was not fast track authority, would a trade agreement be approved by a majority or two-thirds vote?
How would fast track be approved at a later date if it expires?
What happens if a Congressional committee holds onto a treaty longer than 15 days?
The Commission suggested that those staff or Legislators attending the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) meeting look to see if there is a process for states to discuss Fast Track to come up with a clear position on the issue through NCSL and to determine if NCSL has a position on the issue. The message from the Commission is it wishes states to be more involved in trade agreement approval and wishes to figure out a process to work together with other states. The Commission would like staff to do a briefing upon return from the meeting.
Trade State Commissions and Working Groups
Documents distributed:
· Trade Legislative Oversight Committees, Vermont Legislative Council, Updated 10/31/06
Robin Lunge, Legislative Counsel, reviewed the other states’ trade legislative oversight committees. The Commission agreed that it viewed its charge to seek public input in a similar way as Maine has done.
Case Study: Glamis Gold
Documents distributed:
· Environmental Regulation and Investment, Michael O’Grady, Vermont Legislative Counsel, 10/27/06 (PowerPoint presentation)
· Part Five, Chapter 11 of NAFTA on Investment
Michael O’Grady, Legislative Counsel, reviewed the Glamis Gold Ltd., Canada case against the United States. Michael O’Grady said in 2003, the Glamis Company filed a NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) investment claim against the U.S. Government, seeking $50 million in damages. He explained NAFTA Chapter 11 provides foreign investors from party countries’ investment rights and allows the investor to seek relief through a NAFTA tribunal.
Michael elaborated on the federal legal and procedural history of the 1872 mining law which allows citizens, including corporations, to stake claims to mineral rights on federal lands. He then summarized the consequences of a successful Glamis claim, including undermining states’ legislative and policymaking authority, undermining U.S. takings law, lessening the ability of state legislatures to address new issues or innovation under such traditional state powers, providing investors from other NAFTA party countries with greater substantive rights than those granted U.S. citizens, in addition to using NAFTA to escape U.S. courts and the application of state and U.S. laws in order to seek a more amenable forum that is not subject to U.S. court precedent.
Case Study Overview: Trade Agreements and Vermont Prescription Drug Initiatives
Due to time constraints, Robin Lunge, Legislative Counsel, gave a brief preview of the presentation, which will be rescheduled for the December 18th meeting.
California Subcommittee on Trade: Overview of structure, actions taken by the subcommittee; coordinating state response to trade challenges
Laura Metune, Consultant, California Subcommittee on Trade, testified via telephone. Laura described the formation and evolution of the committee and the actions taken. One of the first initiatives undertaken by the committee was an analysis of California law with the Harrison Institute at Georgetown to identify potential trade agreement violations. California has faced a chilling effect in enacting laws aimed to protect the environment or other public policy as the Governor has vetoed one bill because he was concerned about a possible trade agreement violation, and trade agreement provisions have been raised as reasons not to pass bills.
Some current projects include looking at government procurement issues and whether the legislature should have a role, looking at fast track renewal, and a bill requiring the state point of contact to report to the AG and the legislature.
Laura will e-mail her remarks to the Commission.
Committee Discussion and Future Meeting Planning
Documents distributed:
· Draft Letter from Co-chair on behalf of Commission to Vermont Congressional delegation, 11/27/06
Sen. Lyons distributed the draft letter to the Vermont Congressional delegation informing the delegation about the Commission’s existence, and requesting a staff contact in each of its offices to facilitate good communication and information sharing.
The Commission discussed requesting a meeting with the delegation at a later date after the Commission has set up the schedule for public hearings. The Commission approved the letter as drafted.
The Commission also suggested sending a letter to the chairs of the standing committees to counteract any potential chilling effect and alerting the chairs to the Commission and staff as resources on this issue.
Senator Lyons proposed that the Commission proceed through public hearings, working with standing committees, and bringing speakers to the meetings. The Commission generally agreed with this process, especially in light of narrowing the focus to 4 or 5 main topics. The Commission also discussed reviewing the Harrison Institutes analysis for California and to ask the Institute if it could do this for the Commission or work with staff on doing this for Vermont.
The Commission noted trade agreements should also be viewed as an opportunity for the state, while being mindful of the potential issues. The Commission discussed inviting business organizations, such as the Vermont Chamber of Commerce and Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, as well as others to share their perspective on this issue.
The Commission discussed a series of topical public hearings – Business, AG, Health & Environment – in different areas of the state. Even if there was a topic for the meeting, it should be possible for people to raise other issues. It was also suggested that the Commission consider using surveys or other written tools to solicit information and feedback from businesses through the business organizations.
Future Meeting Issues:
The Commission was interested in learning more about:
· * The status of the trade agreements with South Korea and Vietnam.
· *Fast Track – update & coordinated position with other states.
· *Vermont’s procurement letters and information about trade and jobs (percentage of jobs affected by jobs over time) from Dana Eidsness.
· *Presentation on NAFTA.
· *Scheduling public hearings and meetings during the legislative session, including how to involve executive branch agencies and standing committees.
At Noon the Commission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robin Lunge and Rachel Levin
Legislative Council