Posted on 06/29/2005 9:48:47 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
The Labor Department kept secret for more than a year government studies that supported Democratic opponents of the Bush administration's new Central American trade deal, internal documents show.
The studies, paid for by the department, concluded that several countries the administration wants to be granted free-trade status have poor working conditions and fail to protect workers' rights. The agency dismissed the conclusions as inaccurate and biased, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
"In practice, labor laws on the books in Central America are not sufficient to deter employers from violations, as actual sanctions for violations of the law are weak or nonexistent," the contractor, the International Labor Rights Fund, wrote in one of the reports.
The studies' conclusions contrast with the administration's arguments that Central American countries have made enough progress on such issues to warrant a free-trade deal with the United States.
The administration and its congressional supporters argue that the elimination of trade barriers for U.S. products would open new Central American markets for U.S. farmers and manufacturers. Critics argue the trade agreement would allow serious labor violations to continue in Central America.
Hoping to lure enough Democratic votes to win passages, U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record) earlier this month promised to spend money and arrange an international conference to ensure "the best agreement ever negotiated by the United States on labor rights."
But behind the scenes, the administration began as early as spring 2004 to block the reports' public release.
The Labor Department instructed its contractor to remove the reports from its Web site, ordered it to retrieve paper copies before they became public, banned release of new information from the reports, and even told the contractor it couldn't discuss the studies with outsiders.
The Labor Department has now worked out a deal with the contractor that will allow the labor rights group to release the country-by-country final reports — provided there's no mention of the agency or federal funding. At the same time, the administration began a pre-emptive campaign to undercut the study's conclusions.
Used as talking points by trade-pact supporters, a Labor Department document accuses the contractor of writing a report filled with "unsubstantiated" statements and "biased attacks, not the facts."
The contractor's deputy director, Bama Athreya, blamed U.S. Trade Representative officials for circulating the document and citing passages that won't be included in the final versions of the reports.
One lawmaker said he was shocked that a federal agency charged with protecting the rights of Americans workers would go to such lengths to block the public from seeing its own contractor's concerns before Congress votes on the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
"You would think if any agency in our government would care about this, it would be the Labor Department," Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., said.
Dorgan said he would use the contractor findings in an attempt to defeat the agreement, known as CAFTA.
Dirk Fillpot, spokesman for the Labor Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs, said the agency and an independent evaluator concluded the contractor "failed to meet the academic rigor expected to fulfill its contract" and the relationship was terminated June 10.
The competitively bid contract totaled $937,000, but Fillpot said $250,000 will be refunded to the Treasury.
Rep. Kevin Brady (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, who supports the trade agreement, said he is familiar with drafts of the reports and believes they will be "widely dismissed as a fraud." He accused the contractor of producing "a propaganda piece" and concealing "its rabid anti-CAFTA bias."
Athreya, the contractor official, has testified in Congress against the agreement.
The documents show the studies came within a whisker of widespread release in March 2004, when the labor-rights group posted them briefly on its Internet site.
The Labor Department quickly and successfully demanded the reports be removed on grounds they weren't approved by the agency. Officials also demanded the group retrieve a limited number of paper copies that were distributed at a hearing of a Latin American human rights body.
Shortly after that incident, Rep. Sander Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., began a yearlong effort to pry the studies from the department through a Freedom of Information Act request. The department rejected his request until two months ago, when Levin received — and released — early drafts of the reports.
The Trade Representative's spokesman, Richard Mills, said trade officials referred to the Labor Department's critical document after receiving inquiries about the studies.
"From our perspective, nothing has changed. It's a great agreement that will improve labor conditions in Central America," Mills said.
Tell you what, come back and argue your point when CAFTA and the FTAA have thoroughly disrupted "most" peoples way of life here in America and America gives up it's sovereignty for the FTAA's Constitution just like what the EU is trying to do.
"Our inner cities (and Indian reservations) didn't experience this prosperity..." Our inner cities have experienced prosperity???
---
Note the word 'didn't'. The governments of these countries are acting in a similar fashion.
And the same thing was said about NAFTA. The sky was falling folks were dead wrong.
If you want to help South American countries then I'll get you a one way plane ticket so you can go help them yourself. Wouldn't that be more gratifying to you???
If CAFTA is so great then explain to me why after many years of NAFTA the people of Mexico still risk life and limb to cross into America???
So now tell me why, again, I should trust this government to create a "social welfare" system funded by my tax money to support a third-world country and why I should care. How is it going to help America and increase our prosperity???
Using that criteria, we should stop trading with Red China IMMEDIATELY!
You got that right!!!
Bill Clinton had absolutely no balls (even when offered OBL on a silver platter) and "W's" have been infected with some kind of left wing virus.
Reagan is rolling over in his grave because of what "W" is doing.
I am gathering info on the Constitution Party. It is time to TAKE BACK THE UNITED STATES.
We must elect leaders who are Patriots, not Traitors.
BTW, the Libertarian Party should be happy that the prez is pushing CAFTA and the FTAA, after all they want more immigrants, not less.
my response was tailored to your comments about Costa Ricans. Thats why it focused on that area. You brought it up.
"If CAFTA is so great then explain to me why after many years of NAFTA the people of Mexico still risk life and limb to cross into America???"
um... I don't think anyone expected to boost Mexico's per capita gdp to 36k. People come here to experience our freedom and the basic rule of law.
You both might be interested in these guys:
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/why.php
So now tell me why, again, I should trust this government to create a "social welfare" system funded by my tax money to support a third-world country and why I should care. How is it going to help America and increase our prosperity???
---
You shouldn't and it is unfortunate those provisions are in there. Apparently they were put there to satisfy some democratic senator. You have to take some good with some bad. This will bring in billions of dollars of trade between these countries and generate billions of dollars in new wealth and prodcutivity.
If we have to fund some stupid and counterproductive social program and pay some bribes to make it happen.. then lets do it and then in a few years slam the door shut on them.
I know that answer may not be very satisfying. It isn't to me either. But its politics. You sometimes have to give a little.
"This will bring in billions of dollars of trade" - No it won't! Tell me whom is going to be trading what to whom. What do they have that is so important that we will pay them billions of dollars for??? Isn't their currency worth about one twentieth of ours??? Tell me, really, isn't this simply about us buying their goods and not about them buying ours???
"You sometimes have to give a little." - Again, no I don't and that's especially so when it's going to hurt American citizens and lessen our sovereignty.
Honestly, this is really about Americans trying to dismantle our Declaration of Independence, limit our rights and take away or sovereignty. In the end it all comes down to us voting for the FTAA Constitution (or some derivative thereof) just like European countries voting for the EU Constitution!!!! Thank God some citizens of France came to their senses and voted it down!
The intent and operation of many such multinational "trade" accords have more to do with what Hayek calls "statism". And more than that, it facilitates decision-making about the lives of both us AND foreign citizens, by unaccountable international committees like the World Trade Organization Committees on Trade which have already spent much of the last 10 years forcing the USA and other countries to "harmonize" their local legislation where it conflicts with the WTO's rules.
The CAFTA is a different agreement from GATT, GATS, WTO, NAFTA, etc etc but the import of all these things is the same, to bring about in fact and then in spirit our subsidiarity to world bodies.
One by-product of such "free" trade agreements is that the other country is required to remove all tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, which in practice means their local farmers are undercut by required imports (e.g. corn, sugar) of what they already have a surplus of, and then the small or subsistence farmers are left without any means of making a living. Hence millions of more people move to already over-crowded third world cities and government intervention is called for to "save" them, when the whole problem was caused by that government's being pressured.
This is not an unintended consequence, but merely the world view of the elite. I think some unbiased research on such issues as I have recently done, starting with the assumption that all trade is good, helps provide further context.
"This will bring in billions of dollars of trade" - No it won't! Tell me whom is going to be trading what to whom. What do they have that is so important that we will pay them billions of dollars for??? Isn't their currency worth about one twentieth of ours??? Tell me, really, isn't this simply about us buying their goods and not about them buying ours???
---
I think a brush up of the fundmentals of economics would aid in helping you formulate your opinions. Until then, check this out:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/bg1761.cfm
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.