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.

America In Solidarity is urging all of its volunteers to contact their members of Congress and express your concern about what America really needs concerning its trade policy. Please take five minutes and write your Congressman or call them at 202-224-3121 (Senate) or 202-225-3121 (House) and ask them to reject the Bush-Rangel Trade deal. Here is a sample letter:

[DATE]

 

Representative [NAME]

United States House of Representatives

Fax:  [FAX NUMBER]

 

Dear Representative [NAME],

 

I am concerned about House Speaker Pelosi and Ways and Means Chair Rangel’s hasty announcement of a deal with the Bush administration on trade policy on May 10 that could lead to some significant political and policy problems.

 

While the legal text, once written, may produce significant advances regarding labor and environmental protection in free trade agreements, I am baffled and dismayed by the rush to announce this deal, particularly as it is not even clear that the Democratic Leadership and the White House actually do agree.

 

In the press event for the deal, Democrats said the deal only covers the Peru and Panama Free Trade Agreements, while Ways and Means Ranking Member McCrery indicated that the deal is really also about the Colombia and South Korea FTAs and renewed Fast Track authority. While Chairman Rangel indicates that the labor and environmental standards addressed in the deal will be incorporated directly into the text of the agreement, McCrery said that might not be necessary. Democratic Leadership indicates that the deal will require full enforcement of core International Labor Organization core standards, but the US Chamber of Commerce says that it has “assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with ILO Conventions.”

 

Whatever advances the legal text, once written, contains, there are a number of other pressing issues in the FTA model that the deal does not address, or addresses inadequately:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·    <!--[endif]-->It does not address FTAs’ ban on anti-off-shoring and Buy America policies.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·    <!--[endif]-->It does not address FTA’s government procurement chapter threats to federal and state prevailing wage protections, and to renewable energy and recycled content requirements.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·    <!--[endif]-->It would continue to allow Citigroup or other U.S. investors providing private retirement accounts to sue Peruvian taxpayers if Peru reverses its failed Social Security privatization.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·    <!--[endif]-->It would continue to allow foreign investors to directly sue the United States in trade tribunals, a greater right than is enjoyed by U.S. investors.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->·    <!--[endif]-->It does not address FTAs’ limits on imported food safety and inspection.

 

Due to the rushed and secretive nature of this agreement, and a history of trade agreements being a disaster for the working families of America, I am asking you to reject the Bush-Rangel deal and work to achieve a better trade agreement.

 

Sincerely,