§ 42-26.2-2 - Legislative findings.
SECTION 42-26.2-2
§ 42-26.2-2 Legislative findings. –It is hereby found and declared as follows:
(1) Today's international trade agreements have impacts whichextend significantly beyond the bounds of traditional trade matters such astariffs and quotas, and instead grant foreign investors and service providerscertain rights and privileges regarding operations within a state's territory,subject various state non-trade related laws to challenge as "barriers totrade" in the binding dispute resolution bodies that accompany the pacts, andplace limits on the future policy options of state legislatures.
(2) The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), forexample, grants foreign firms new rights and privileges for operating within astate that exceed those granted to U.S. businesses under state and federal law.NAFTA has already generated "regulatory takings" cases against state and localland use decisions, state environmental and public health policies, adversestate court rulings, and state and local contracts that would not have beenpossible in U.S. courts.
(3) When states agree to be bound by government procurementprovisions contained in trade agreements such as World Trade Organization(WTO), NAFTA and various NAFTA-expansion agreements such as Central AmericanFree Trade Agreement (CAFTA), common economic development and environmentalpolicies, such as buy-local laws, policies to prevent off-shoring of statejobs, as well as recycled content laws could be subject to challenge as"barriers to trade" as they contradict the obligations in the trade agreements.
(4) Today's trade agreements also curtail state regulatoryauthority by placing constraints on future policy options. The WTO servicesagreement undermines state efforts to expand healthcare coverage and rein inhealthcare costs, and places constraints on state and local land use planning.New negotiations in the services area will have additional implications forstate regulation of energy, higher education, professional licensing, and more.
(5) Despite the indisputable fact that today's internationaltrade agreements have far-reaching impacts on state and local law and policy,federal government trade negotiators have failed to provide state legislatureswith necessary information and documents regarding provisions directlyaffecting state jurisdiction, have failed to consult with state legislatureswhen seeking the consent of states to be bound to trade agreement procurementobligations, and have sought neither governor nor legislature consent beforebinding states to comply with numerous other trade agreement provisions.
(6) The current encroachment on state regulatory authority byinternational trade agreements has been exacerbated because U.S. trade policyis being formulated and implemented under "Fast Track" Trade Authorityprocedures. Fast Track eliminates any meaningful role for states and limitscongress's role to a yes or no vote with no amendments after negotiations arecompleted and a final agreement is signed. When Fast Track sunsets in 2007, itshould be replaced with a more democratic model for negotiating tradeagreements, one which ensures that the prior informed consent of states issecured before states are bound to the regulatory terms of any trade agreement.
(7) This law is enacted to protect the state's sovereignty;the state's ability to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of itscitizens; and the Founders' system of federalism in the current era ofglobalization.