Did Congressional Democrats cut a deal with President Bush over trade agreements?

U.S. trade policy must serve the interests of America’s working families and workers around the globe. There has to be provisions for worker's rights and protections in any trade agreement. This has rarely been the case in every trade agreement since the North American Free Trade Agreement that has seen the loss of millions of American jobs and the immigration of millions of Mexican farmers into the United States as Mexican farms have been put out of business thanks to NAFTA.

In dozens of 2006 Congressional races, trade agreements followed (and in places like Ohio likely exceeded) only Iraq as the issue. Without a doubt, Congressional Democrats were given a clear directive about how the people of this country felt about trade agreements: CUT US A BETTER DEAL. We want protections for the environment, for worker's rights, protection for local industry and to end what are essentially trade agreements that amount to corporate welfare.

But, shockingly, last night Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined the White House and congressional Democrats and Republicans in charge of trade to announce a "deal." The deal would facilitate passage of at least Bush's NAFTA expansions for Peru and Panama. The deal involves adding stronger labor and environmental standards, but falls way short of de-NAFTA-fying those two trade agreements by removing the bans on anti-off-shoring and Buy America policies, or the outrageous foreign investor rights that facilitate off-shoring and attacks on our health and environmental laws. It's a scenario where some truly tasty icing has been spread over a deeply rotten cake

David Sirota's ongoing blog has been covering this issue and so has Public Citizen.

(May 19th Update: Volunteer Traci Kelly sent along these links to a new article and a special interview from PBS' Bill Moyers) 

 

Talking Points: What's Wrong With the Bush-Rangel Trade "Deal"

Substance: The "Deal" Doesn't Even Attempt to Fix Most of the Problems with NAFTA-style Trade Pacts

The crux of the deal is to renegotiate Bush's NAFTA expansions deals to add stronger labor and environmental standards and to limit some of the extreme monopoly rights these trade agreements give Big Pharma to jack up poor countries' drug prices. Unfortunately, the deal fails to even address the many other damaging elements of the NAFTA model that have contributed to wage stagnation for U.S. workers, promoted off-shoring of millions of U.S. jobs, and exposed core domestic policies to challenge as "illegal trade barriers."

Among the minimal essential "fixes" labor, consumer and other organizations listed months ago as necessary for not opposing the "deal", which are not addressed or fixed in the "deal", include:

• the outrageous ban on domestic anti-off-shoring policy and Buy America policies contained in the agreements' procurement chapters;
• the NAFTA Chapter 11-style foreign investor rights that expose our most basic environmental, health, zoning and other laws to attack in foreign trade tribunals;
• the serious threat the pacts' rules pose to our prevailing wage laws for government contracts and recycled content and renewable energy policies;
• the agriculture rules that will foreseeably result in the displacement of millions of peasant farmers — increasing hunger, social unrest, desperate migration and, according to Peruvian and Colombian government reports, an increase in drug cultivation, trade and violence;
• or the food safety limits that require us to import meat not meeting our safety standards — even as we face a new crisis of unsafe imported food.

Social Security Privatization Provision Not Fixed

Unbelievably, the "deal" also doesn't fix the Peru FTA provisions that would allow Citibank, or other U.S. investors providing "private retirement accounts," to sue Peruvian taxpayers if Peru tries to reverse its failed Social Security privatization. This problem in the FTA is deemed by Peru's labor federations to be a major impediment to reversing the failed partial privatization which is similar to what Democrats and most Americans opposed when it was proposed by President Bush for the United States.

Process: The Sneak-Attack Way the "Deal" was Negotiated and Announced was Outrageously Undemocratic

Unions, environmental groups, small businesses, and (most outrageously) most members of the U.S. Congress were excluded from the negotiations, had NO access to the various documents and texts and had no say — and in fact no notice — on the deal. The future of our national trade policy is too important to be decided behind closed doors by an insider "deal." Read more here.

What Next? This "Deal" is a Slippery Slope to a Frightening Colombia Trade Pact, and More Bush "Fast Track" (Abuse of) Authority

Speaker Pelosi has said that this "deal" only applies to the Peru and Panama agreement, but the corporate lobbyists, Republicans and the Bush administration have already said that this "deal" will, in the words of President Bush, provide "a clear path for advancing our proposed free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea."

More than 400 union members have been murdered since Colombian President Alvaro Uribe was elected. It is offensive to even consider a trade pact with Colombia. Our workers shouldn't have to compete with a country where the murder of union members is their comparative advantage. Despite the clear and vociferous opposition of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win labor federations to any Colombia FTA, this "deal" was cut without any assurances that the Colombia FTA would be stopped.

Republican leaders, the White House, and corporate lobbyists are already saying that this "deal" will pave the way to an extensive of FAST TRACK authority for President Bush. This president doesn't deserve any more executive authority, over anything — much less over the future of the global economy. And it is unimaginable that after all the abuse of the powers of the presidency by George Bush, that the new Democratic majority in Congress would even consider giving him any more authority — as Rangel says "he can imagine" doing.[3]

This slippery slope "deal" is a huge mistake — and that does not ever get to the incalculable political damage this deal could cause. If we don't stand up and say NO to this weak and totally insufficient compromise "deal," then we could see a domino-effect trade disaster.

What are Congress' Priorities Anyhow? The "Deal" Puts NAFTA Expansion Ahead of Any Pro-Working Family Legislation

President Bush has promised to veto the Employee Free Choice Act, which would support workers' rights to organize unions. Republicans and corporate lobbyists have held up legislation to increase the minimum wage; help on student loans has not become law; and the insurance industry has crushed any discussion of universal health care. By agreeing to more-of-the-same NAFTA expansion before assuring any increase in protections for the American middle class, the Democratic leadership in Congress is making a huge political and strategic mistake.

We are Courting Disaster: The Trade Deficit Set To Keep Ballooning

The Bush administration revealed yesterday that the trade deficit is at record highs, last year clocking in at $800 billion. Cosmetic changes to NAFTA deals with Peru and Panama are not going to have any impact on the deficit.

Listen to Us! Americans Are Worried About Trade

Polls numbers show an intense anxiety among the American public about the negative impact of trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO. A majority of Americans believe these trade deals have hurt the financial situation of their families. Congress is making a big mistake by proposing a "deal" with President Bush on more NAFTA that will only lead to more bad outcomes for American families.

America In Solidarity is asking all of its volunteers to take five minutes and write their Congressman or call them at 1-800-862-5530 and ask them to reject the Bush-Rangel Trade deal.

Follow for a sample letter to send to your member of Congress.