Posted on 04/06/2004 2:41:31 PM PDT by ninenot
Following are excerpts from a letter sent by Public Citizen to Governors, Attorneys-General, and other State officials:
"Today’s international “trade” agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), contain many policy obligations and constraints to which U.S. federal, State and local governments are bound to conform their domestic polic ies. State laws that conflict with these rules can and have been challenged as illegal “barriers to trade” in the binding dispute resolution systems established by these agreements. The federal government has assumed authority to commit all levels of government to many of these trade agreement provisions, without specific consent by subfederal governments. A general exception has been procurement policy.
"A leaked September 2003 letter from the Bush administration to Governors reveals that an attempt currently is underway to obtain Governors’ “voluntary” commitment to bind their States to comply with procurement rules to be included in all new trade pacts now being negotiated. Governors were asked to commit States to comply with whatever procurement rules result from negotiations – effectively to deposit an open signature card for future pacts with unknown requirements. Among the pacts that would be covered are the recently-completed Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which covers El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic , and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), a proposed NAFTA expansion to 31 countries in the Western Hemisphere.
..."We are writing to alert you that CAFTA contains constraints with regard to the development of procurement policy and the awarding of procurement contracts that conflict with an array of procurement policies common in many U.S. States. If a State signs up and agrees to comply with the procurement provisions of CAFTA, the following policies are forbidden, meaning existing policies that do not conform must be changed, and states are forbidden from establishing such policies in the future:
"· Anti-offshoring policies. CAFTA requires “national treatment” for all goods and services a government purchases, meaning signatory governments cannot give preference to local firms or firms employing local workers, much less forbid the spending of State tax dollars on companies offshoring work. This means that the “anti-offshoring” legislation now proposed by 31 States, and an array of other local development policies aimed at keeping State dollars paying in-state wages and giving preference to locally-produced goods and services (“Buy America”), are forbidden under CAFTA procurement rules.
..."· Set-asides, preferences for small businesses. CAFTA explicitly bans “offsets” which set aside a portion of procurement activity for specified types of businesses. However, CAFTA contains a “carve-out” that allows States to maintain policies that give preferences for minority and womenowned businesses. There is no such carve-out for policies which set aside a portion of State business for small businesses. The logic behind this distinction is that small businesses are typically local businesses and thus special treatment for small businesses would discriminate against foreign businesses.
"· Policies targeting companies’ human rights, environmental, labor conduct. The CAFTA limits what sorts of qualifications may be required of companies seeking to supply a good or service. Conditions for participation in bidding are limited to 'those that are essential to ensure that the supplier has the legal, technical and financial abilities to fulfill the requirements and technical specifications of the procurement.' This means that suppliers cannot be disqualified because of the companies’ labor, human rights or environmental records although many States ban bids from contractors who have previously violated State environmental, labor and other laws. Under the same provision, 'sweat free' procurement rules that ban purchase of goods from companies using sweatshop labor or child labor are forbidden, as is the exclusion of companies based on their international human rights and environmental records.
..."· Prevailing and living wages and project-labor agreements: CAFTA’s limits on the requirements that can be imposed on contractors also forbid conditions such as prevailing wage and living wage requirements. Project labor agreements that require fair treatment of workers and their unions in order to avoid labor disputes in public works projects also cannot be required for a bidder to qualify for State business.
..."· Policies targeting countries’ human rights, labor rights, other conduct. CAFTA requires 'most favored nation' treatment in procurement, meaning that governments cannot treat foreign companies differently based on the human rights, labor rights or environmental records of the countries in which they are based or in which they operate. This removes tools used by States in the past to demand corporate responsibility in the face of human rights abuses – such as the policies disqualifying procurement from companies doing business in apartheid South Africa and those now in place in several States regarding procurement with companies doing business in Burma.
States ALREADY signatory include: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming. 2 In addition to the 23 states listed in CAFTA, the U.S.-Australia text includes: Georgia, Hawaii, Oregon, and Rhode Island.
Looks like Brother Jeb is pushing hard to get Florida to be first with CAFTA compliance.
You need to get in there with Hillary and complain that the Bush is trying to "roll-back the New Deal".
I think you may be much closer to being on Hllary's side than I am.
If you think this (FTAA, CAFTA, etc.) is good for the US then state why you think so. Otherwise, stay out of the discussion. An ad hominum on an opening post is generally an admission that you have no argument and are trying to divert the issue by attacking the person who made the post. I would prefer a discussion that requires something above a two digit IQ to a disruption, please.
The Reagan Whitehouse began the un-doing of it all when they composed the language that would later become known as Chapter 11 of NAFTA.
The Singapore and Chile FTAs, CAFTA, FTAA, and other bi-lateral/regional agreements will try to accomplish the same. The only thing wrong with CAFTA is that it permits set-a-sides for females and minorities. The cost of these set-a-sides will be passed on; they are regulatory takings.
When you find yourself agreeing with Public Citizen, the unions, Hillary, and the 9th Circuit Court you've got to realize that the left and the right are uniting against the middle.
And sometimes...That is a GOOD thing!
Seriously, I'll have to research the genuineness of this.
If even one TENTH of this sellout is accurate...
As head of the NHTSA, she was an unflagging advocate for ramming feel-good, anti-business federal regulations down our throats.
When a socialist gets religion about states' rights, you might want to examine the particular issues a little closer. Remember after the 2000 elections when the Democrats started screaming about states' rights? Well, it was because they'd lost.
She doesn't like the rules of CAFTA -- period. So, she trots out the ol' states' rights chestnut. And, judging by the posts here, I guess it works.
Check out her points, one by one. She hates anything that would allow Americans the freedom to conduct business in their own best interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.