• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Montana Senate Votes Against NAFTA & Fast Track

A

Anonymous

Guest
This Bill passed the Montana Senate 44-6 and was transmitted to the House....Much of the aim is to send a message to Senator Baucus who now as the head of the Senate Finance Commitee will have a big say on whether "Fast Track" authority is again given to a President or as these esteemed lawmakers believe - that it should be done away with.....No more NAFTA's, CAFTA's, AFTA's that remove states rights.....

And this is not a Partisan Democrat/Republican issue as the MT Senate is made up of 26 Democrats and 24 Republicans......


--------------------------------------------
February 27, 2006
Contact: Joel Barkin at 202-441-5247
MT SENATE TELLS BAUCUS TO REJECT "FAST TRACK"

Montana Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Good Jobs & Democracy Act Sending Signal to Congressional Delegation to Reverse Course on Trade

The Montana State Senate fired a shot across the bow of current U.S. trade policy today, overwhelmingly passing (45 to 5) a resolution calling on Congress to reject the President's "Fast Track" trade promotion authority that has been used to negotiate bad trade deals that limit opportunity for workers and state legislatures' ability to govern.

Fast Track authority, which is set to expire June 30 of this year, delegates to the president Congress' trade policymaking authority. Fast Track has enabled passage of controversial trade deals including NAFTA, CAFTA and the World Trade Organization, which have all accelerated a trade and jobs crisis, marked by a near $800 billion trade deficit and stagnated wages.

Under these Fast Track-enabled trade policies, Montana's ability to create and enact its own laws is in jeopardy due to overreaching trade agreements that incorporate rules that have little to do with trade. Many of these trade pact rules contradict Montana laws that were already democratically enacted by state government.

U.S. Senator Max Baucus is a key figure in the Fast Track debate. His chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over trade policy, is critical in deciding the future of Fast Track and related policies. In the past he has been instrumental in the passage of Fast Track, a tenuous position in a state as economically populist as Montana. By contrast, this month the Sidney Herald reported that Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) is "against fast track," quoting the freshman lawmaker as saying: "I don't care if the president is a Democrat or a Republican, I think legislators need to scrutinize these things."

"Montanans are fortunate to have its senior senator play a key role in the debate over Fast Track and how to address failed trade deals like NAFTA. While it may sound like an inside the Beltway policy tool, Fast Track is an extraordinary device that strips Congress of any meaningful role and has delivered bad trade deals. We're hopeful Sen. Baucus will listen to the legislature and reevaluate his position to restore Congress' authority," said Joel Barkin, Executive Director of the Progressive States Network.

The Progressive States Network was founded in 2005 to drive public policy debates and change the political landscape in the United States by focusing on attainable and progressive state level actions. It accomplishes this mission by uniting policy makers with experts and grassroots organizations to provide the combination of efforts needed to advance good policy.

-----------------------------------------------------------
2007 Montana Legislature

About Bill -- Links

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 17

INTRODUCED BY J. ELLIOTT



A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA URGING CONGRESS TO CREATE A SYSTEM THAT ENSURES THAT TRADE AGREEMENTS ARE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED USING A DEMOCRATIC, INCLUSIVE MECHANISM THAT ENSHRINES THE PRINCIPLES OF FEDERALISM AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY.



WHEREAS, democratic, accountable governance in the states generally, and specifically the authority granted by the Montana Constitution to the Legislative Branch, is being undermined by international commercial and trade rules enforced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and established by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and is further threatened by similar provisions in an array of pending trade agreements; and

WHEREAS, today's "trade" agreements have impacts that extend significantly beyond the bounds of traditional trade matters, such as tariffs and quotas, and instead grant foreign investors and service providers certain rights and privileges regarding acquisition of land and facilities and regarding operations within a state's territory, subject state laws to challenge as "nontariff barriers to trade" in the binding dispute resolution bodies that accompany the pacts, and place limits on the future policy options of state legislatures; and

WHEREAS, NAFTA and other U.S. free trade agreements grant foreign firms new rights and privileges for operating within a state that exceed those rights and privileges granted to U.S. businesses under state and federal law; and

WHEREAS, NAFTA already has generated "regulatory takings" cases against state and local land-use decisions, state environmental and public health policies, adverse state court rulings, and state and local contracts that would not have been possible in U.S. courts; and

WHEREAS, when states are bound to comply with government procurement provisions contained in trade agreements, common economic development and environmental policies, such as buy-local laws, prevailing wage laws, and policies to prevent offshoring of state jobs, as well as recycled content laws, could be subject to challenge as violating the obligations in the trade agreements; and

WHEREAS, recent trade agreements curtail state regulatory authority by placing constraints on future policy options; and

WHEREAS, the WTO general agreement on trade in services (GATS) could undermine state efforts to expand health care coverage and rein in health care costs and places constraints on state and local land-use planning and gambling policy; and

WHEREAS, new GATS negotiations could impose additional constraints on state regulation of energy, higher education, professional licensing, and other areas; and

WHEREAS, despite the indisputable fact that international trade agreements have a far-reaching impact on state and local laws, federal government trade negotiators have failed to respect states' rights to prior informed consent before binding states to conform state law and authority to trade agreement requirements and have refused even to inform state legislatures of key correspondence; and

full resolution:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/billhtml/SJ0017.htm
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bloomberg News reported yesterday on the Montana Senate's passage of an anti-fast-track resolution. The article highlights the pressure brought to bear by the resolution's 44-6 passage in Montana with Max Baucus's historic support for fast track authority. Or, as they put it:

Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee Chairman, came under pressure from his own state legislature to oppose extending President George W. Bush's trade negotiating authority.
[...]

The trade authority expires at the end of June, and Baucus, who is up for re-election in 2008, has said he wants to work with the administration to revamp and extend it. Baucus agrees with the basic concerns of the Montana lawmakers, his spokeswoman Carol Guthrie said.

"Congress must change the way trade agreements are negotiated and approved," Guthrie said. "Trade can be a more powerful tool for creating jobs in this country, and the way you get there is by giving Congress a much bigger role to stand up for folks back home."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aAu.irc2WjF0
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Keep it up OT and youll be burning cow pies to keep warm and to run your vehicles..... :roll:

Actually Canadian oil is what brought some of this to the forefront of the Legislature...When Montana/US oil producers couldn't get $40 for their crude, because they couldn't find room in the pipeline-while Canada was getting $70/80 because all the pipeline space was promised to them under NAFTA and other agreements- some Montana folks were a little ticked....

You forget- Montana besides having oil also has 8% of the worlds supply of coal...If our so called allies keep jacking us (US) around the US may have to start using/developing its own energy resources and actually allowing the US landowner/producer to profit from it instead of enriching every Arab or foreign country in the world......



2/28/2007 4:07:00 PM


US DOE To Invest $385 Million In 6 Biorefinery Projects



WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. Department of Energy over the next four years plans to invest $385 million in six biorefinery projects that will produce motor fuel from trash, woodchips and agricultural waste products, the department announced Wednesday.



The projects selected are being proposed by Abengoa Bioenergy Corp., a division of Spanish-based Abengoa SA (ABG.MC); Bluefire Ethanol Inc. (BFRE); Iogen Corp.; Alico Inc. (ALCO); Range Fuels; and Broin Cos.



If all are successful, new biorefineries would be located across the U.S. -in Kansas, Florida, California, Iowa, Idaho and Georgia.



The plants, like oil refineries, would produce motor fuels. But instead of crude, the feedstock would be agricultural waste like corn stover and woodchips.



BlueFire, for instance, is planning to build a biorefinery in California to turn waste and wood residues at landfills into 19 million gallons of fuel- grade ethanol per year. Virginia-based Iogen, which is working with Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA) and Goldman Sachs on its project in Idaho, is planning to make transportation fuel out of wheat straw, switchgrass and corn stover. Negotiations between the selected companies and DOE will begin immediately to finalize project levels. The six companies could receive enough funding to cover up to 40% of the cost of their projects, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said at a press conference.



"Cellulosic ethanol is a lot closer to reality than most people realize," said Iogen President Brian Foody at the press briefing. "Today's announcement marks a key step in building a multi-billion-gallon cellulosic ethanol industry in America."



Similarly, Bodman said the DOE funding will help move cellulosic ethanol out bof the research and development phase into one where it can compete commercially with gasoline and corn-based ethanol.



"The target is to have cellulosic ethanol manufactured at the same cost as corn ethanol," Bodman said. "$1-a-gallon, I think, is a reasonable target."



Meanwhile, the secretary said he expects a 54-cent-a-gallon import tariff on ethanol and the 51-cent-a-gallon subsidy to stay in place until they expire in 2009 and 2010, respectively.



But he noted that the federal government's support for cellulosic ethanol through biorefinery grants and loan guarantees should eventually make way for cellulosic ethanol producers to compete fairly with other fuels and even with other countries.



Getting the manufacturing cost to that $1-a-gallon level would put cellulosic ethanol producers "in a very strong position to compete with any technologies in the world," Bodman said. "The prospect of receiving ethanol or other biofuels from Latin America is a positive one for this country."



DOE's decision to invest millions in next-generation ethanol projects falls in line with President Bush's goal of making cellulosic ethanol – an alternative fuel produced from biomass - cost competitive with gasoline by 2012 as well as his plan to reduce America's gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years.



Also, the Bush administration is aiming to increase the use of renewable and alternative fuels in the transportation sector to 35 billion gallons by 2017.



"These biorefineries will play a critical role in helping to bring cellulosic ethanol to market, and teaching us how we can produce it in a more cost effective manner," the secretary said.



While production of ethanol from corn has already soared in recent years, so have corn prices.



Thus, there's a point when it's important to produce fuel from non-food- based biomass in order to protect corn as a cost-efficient food source, said Bodman.



"We're going to run out of the cost-effective process if the cost of the feedstock continues to rise," he said of corn-based ethanol.



While corn-based ethanol production in the U.S. could double to between 12 to 15 billion gallons a year, "I think it's going to be hard to get beyond" that, Bodman said. "We're going to need things like cellulosic ethanol and cellulosic butanol."



An industry group representing ethanol producers agreed that help from cellulosic ethanol is needed to meet growing demands for transportation fuel.



"While corn will remain a key component of our ethanol industry, the kind of production necessary to greatly reduce gasoline consumption in this country can only be realized from the addition of cellulosic material as a feedstock," said Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dineen.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Keep it up OT and youll be burning cow pies to keep warm and to run your vehicles..... :roll:

I don't see Montana's actions as anti-trade; I see it as recognizing a failed policy and a call to do things differently.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Manitoba_Rancher said:
Both you guys are protectionist whiners!!

I'm not a protectionist, but when something doesn't work, why continue down the same path? NAFTA has NOT lived up to it's promises, our membership in the WTO violates the constitution, and our leaders want more of the same. Somebody has got to put the brakes on and install some common sense.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Where is the Montana Senators and the rest of you whining R-Klanners outcry over USDA reducing BSE testing by 90%.

But that doesn't fit your protectionist agenda at the moment does it?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill said:
Where is the Montana Senators and the rest of you whining R-Klanners outcry over USDA reducing BSE testing by 90%.

But that doesn't fit your protectionist agenda at the moment does it?

Look up the word "protectionist". You don't know what you're talking about.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Where is the Montana Senators and the rest of you whining R-Klanners outcry over USDA reducing BSE testing by 90%.

But that doesn't fit your protectionist agenda at the moment does it?

Look up the word "protectionist". You don't know what you're talking about.

That label fits you perfectly Sadhusker.

Where are you on the BSE testing see-saw tonight Sadhsuker. In favor of the US increasing the amount of testing or decreasing it by 90%.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Where is the Montana Senators and the rest of you whining R-Klanners outcry over USDA reducing BSE testing by 90%.

But that doesn't fit your protectionist agenda at the moment does it?

Look up the word "protectionist". You don't know what you're talking about.

That label fits you perfectly Sadhusker.

Where are you on the BSE testing see-saw tonight Sadhsuker. In favor of the US increasing the amount of testing or decreasing it by 90%.

I suggest you refrain from using big words unless you take the time to learn their definition.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Look up the word "protectionist". You don't know what you're talking about.

That label fits you perfectly Sadhusker.

Where are you on the BSE testing see-saw tonight Sadhsuker. In favor of the US increasing the amount of testing or decreasing it by 90%.

I suggest you refrain from using big words unless you take the time to learn their definition.

Typical Sadhusker.

Doing anything and everything once again to avoid answering the question. You are certainly lost without the girls there to help answer aren't you.
 
Top