Labor 2 Dems: Vote for CAFTA at your peril

[Moses]

Labor tells Dems: Vote for CAFTA at your peril

By Josephine Hearn

Labor groups put aside their differences for a moment Monday to draw a line in the sand on the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), telling House Democrats that unions would not support any Democrat who voted in favor of the pivotal trade pact.

“Simply put, there must be real and measurable consequences for opposing labor on this issue. The stakes are too high for the workers of America. We cannot and we will not give any Democrat a pass on CAFTA,” wrote the presidents of the International Association of Fire Fighters, the AFL-CIO Building and Trades Department, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Teamsters and nearly every other large, politically active labor union in a strongly worded letter to House Democratic leaders.
In particular, the union chiefs took issue with three Democrats — Reps. Melissa Bean (Ill.) [Bean has voted for every neocon piece of legislation Bush has put forward, including the extension of the Patriot act], Jim Matheson (Utah) and Dennis Moore (Kan.) — all part of the party’s Frontline program, which aids vulnerable incumbents.

Unions raised nearly $300,000 for the three incumbents, and other members of the Frontline program, at a July 18 fundraiser held at the Prince George’s County Trap and Skeet Center. [Ask for it back!]

But on Friday, Bean became the sixth Democrat to announce publicly her support for the agreement, and unions said that Matheson and Moore may be leaning toward a yes vote.
The labor leaders were incensed that just days after having received campaign contributions from the labor movement the three Democrats would break party ranks to vote for CAFTA.
Laying blame squarely at the feet of Democratic leadership, the union chiefs wrote: “We expect that House Democratic leadership will convey very strongly to all wavering Democrats, and particularly to Frontline candidates, that voting for CAFTA against our strong, clear, and loud objections, would signal to the labor movement that those Frontline candidates do not want our support.”
 
The letter met a negative response from some on Capitol Hill. “It may result in the exact opposite of what labor wants,” said a senior Democratic aide who spoke on condition on anonymity. “No member, particularly those in more challenging districts, wants to look like they’re beholden to anyone.”

In a statement, a spokesman for Moore said, “Rep. Moore is an independent leader for the people of Kansas, doing what is right and responsible for his constituents and the country as a whole. Rep. Moore, who remains undecided, continues to listen to his constituents and gather information about CAFTA, as he has with past trade agreements.”

A spokesman for Bean said the congresswoman had no comment on the letter. Matheson’s press secretary could not be reached for comment. [ha ha ha-- I'll bet he is "listening to his constituents" -- if by constituents you mean neocons]

Bean received $235,000 from labor in 2004 in her successful bid to unseat former Rep. Phil Crane (R-Ill.), who chaired the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee. Matheson and Moore raised $279,000 and $232,000, respectively, from labor in 2004, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
CAFTA is expected to come to the House floor later this week amid intense lobbying from both sides.

The union chiefs went on to urge Democratic leaders — including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Frontline program chairman Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.) — that any Democrat who “votes wrong” on CAFTA should be removed from the Frontline program. [Hoyer and Emanuel both voted to make the PATRIOT ACT permanent, and other noxious votes for neocons-- if they want a party to represent actual people, they will have to start a new one-- the Dem Party is finished-- they all belong to Al From et al].

A spokeswoman for the DCCC, which runs the Frontline program, said, “We absolutely appreciate labor’s suggestions and recommendations, but the DCCC determines which members are in our Frontline program.”[ Meaning Rahm Emanuel, neocon ringer]

The letter is a surprising show of unity for labor leaders, even as they are in the midst of a rancorous quadrennial conference in Chicago. Several unions announced Monday that they would pull out of the AFL-CIO, an umbrella group that has represented the united voice of labor for 50 years, over differences about what proportion of resources should be devoted to organizing new union members. Those unions have set up an independent group, the Change to Win Coalition.

However, Monday’s letter represents a broad cross-section of unions from both sides of the divide, sending a message to Congress that the labor movement would remain united on issues of broad agreement.

Labor leaders also included praise for Republicans in their letter, criticizing the Democratic leadership’s decision not to whip the CAFTA vote. [Rotten to the core-- the Unions need to dump Hoyer]

“That decision [not to whip the vote] has led us to grudgingly admire the majority for their resolute commitment to rewarding their core constituencies on seminal issues.”

“Unfortunately, it seems that, at times, the Democratic Party fails to recognize its obligation to stand united with its allies when we need you the most. Partnership is a two-way street.”

Some political observers have speculated that the divisions in labor and the greater emphasis on organizing may lead unions to become less politically active in federal campaigns. One representative of a breakaway union sought to quell those concerns yesterday.

“To the extent Democrats are worried about less money being available to them, the Change to Win unions will spend more money on politics, but will try to get more bang for their buck,” said Mike Mathis, government affairs director for the Teamsters. “If a Democrat or Republican is good for labor, they have noting to worry about,” he said, but he said the unions would be looking to hold members of Congress more accountable on issues such as CAFTA.

The political directors of the unions in the Change to Win Coalition, which includes the Teamsters and the SEIU, were slated to meet yesterday afternoon to develop the group’s political strategy.

[Moses]

Oppose CAFTA: Women's Health and Security are on the Line!

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote this week on the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA/DR). This proposed agreement puts the profits of large U.S. corporations ahead of critical protections for workers and families. Sadly, CAFTA/DR has already passed the Senate, 55-45, but there is a chance to defeat this harmful bill in the House because the vote is very close and there are many undecided votes. See below for more background on CAFTA/DR.



CAFTA undermines the safety, economic health and livelihood of communities and poor farmers in Central America and the Dominican Republic, and will have a proportionately negative economic impact on women and their families, both here and in the affected areas.

If passed, provisions in the CAFTA trade agreement will undermine development programs that enrich the lives of women, poor and low income workers, small businesses, minority groups and others that have historically been excluded from the benefits of economic growth. Every representative needs to hear from their constituents NOW.

Background:

Macroeconomic policies such as those proposed by NAFTA and CAFTA/DR have a differential impact on women. In CAFTA's case, the agreement's provisions lack strong labor and environmental protections, making it harmful to both U.S. and Central American workers and farmers. It does not require compliance with even the most basic internationally recognized labor rights and specifically fails to protect women workers against discrimination.

The Bush Administration has disguised this outsourcing bill as an effort to "open up markets." In fact, most Central American workers are so poor they will NEVER create a market for American goods because they can't afford to buy them. All that CAFTA/DR will do for impoverished Central American workers will be to target them as an excellent source of dirt-cheap labor and increase the inhumane treatment of those workers.

CAFTA/DR will also raise the cost of essential necessities for Central American and Dominican Republic families. The flood of foreign goods into the local markets as generated by CAFTA (due to the elimination of tariffs on such goods) would not only force out local (often women-run) competition, but also increase prices of basic commodities.

CAFTA/DR will also increase the number of households living in poverty, and almost a quarter of Central American households are headed by women(1). CAFTA/DR, as in the case of NAFTA, would enable trans-national companies to move their businesses to Central America where they can get away with paying low wages, exploiting the use of pesticides and chemicals that are prohibited in the U.S., and subjecting the workers on these farms to harmful working conditions that violate international human rights standards.

Women would be hit especially hard, as it would subject them to greater workloads and force them to look for work outside their farm or town—which in turn would put them in potentially dangerous and exploitative situations in addition to separating them from their families.

Women constitute the majority of maquiladora (manufacturing sector) workers in Central America. In Nicaragua, maquilas (factories) currently provide about 37,000 jobs, approximately 80% of which are held by young women. In Honduras, maquilas(2) currently employ about 106,000 people, 67% of whom are women(3). And maquilas (particularly textiles and apparels), are expected to grow in numbers under CAFTA. While women may appear to have more earning potential in the maquiladora sector, their work is precarious and unstable. In order to make more money, they work grueling hours under poor conditions with low morale. Intense and long workdays, nonpayment of overtime; no personal leave for reasons of health or family obligations, labor violence (which implies, among other things, beating and verbal abuse) are all common practices in many maquilas.

In addition, CAFTA's language on labor rights does not address problems such as sexual harassment and discrimination, which could have serious repercussions for women who work in the maquiladora sector throughout the region(4). Intrusive pregnancy tests are required in order to apply for leave and benefits (vacations, Christmas bonuses, etc.). There also has been an increase in the practice of deducting fees for pensions and health-care from workers' salaries, which are then unfairly appropriated and never transferred to the proper institutions, such as the Social Security Agency. There is a continuing myth that jobs created by international investors and free trade agreements bring women out of poverty. However without the support of unions or the ability to negotiate fair wages, jobs in export processing zones often leave women with a little more that the barest necessities(5). CAFTA would also prevent approval for marketing inexpensive generic medicines, threatening p! oor women's health and especially the lives of people with HIV/AIDS.

---

Footnotes:
(1) "Women in Forestry," World Resources Institute.
(2) Maquila is the commonly used word for factories opened by transnational corporations in Latin America.
(3) EPICA, "Surviving Free Trade: Women's Voices from Nicaragua and Honduras," May/June, 2002.
(4) Sampson, Kristin, "Bankrupt US Economic Policy Forecloses on Women's Human Rights." International Gender and Trade Network.
(5) STITCH: Women United for Worker Justice.

[Moses]

If we don’t stop CAFTA this week, we will be stuck with a job-killing trade deal just like NAFTA. President George W. Bush is lobbying hard for the House to pass CAFTA this week.



CAFTA—the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement—would extend NAFTA’s disastrous job loss, workers’ rights abuses and environmental damage throughout Central America.



Your U.S. representative needs to hear from you NOW. Urge him or her to oppose CAFTA by calling this number
toll-free: 

            1-800-718-1008



Tell your representative:







“I strongly urge you to oppose CAFTA. CAFTA is based on the failed NAFTA and will expand NAFTA’s legacy of lost jobs, low wages and trampled workers’ rights to six more countries.”



Just like NAFTA, CAFTA does not include meaningful protections of workers’ rights—but it gives trade breaks to countries that violate workers’ rights. Highlight these points when you call your representative’s office:



• CAFTA is based on the failed NAFTA, and it will expand NAFTA’s legacy of lost jobs, low wages and trampled workers’ rights to six more countries.

• Under NAFTA and other failed U.S. trade policies, the U.S. trade deficit reached a record $600 billion last year as American companies relocated to take advantage of lower wages, weaker worker and environmental protections and improved access to the U.S. market. Even companies that didn’t destroy jobs used the threat of leaving the United States to break union organizing drives and win concessions at the bargaining table.

• The NAFTA-related trade deficit cost U.S. workers nearly 900,000 net jobs through 2002—and the trade deficit only has grown since then, despite predictions by NAFTA supporters in the 1990s that the agreement would generate trade surpluses for another 15 years.

We can’t afford another NAFTA. Please call your representative now and urge him or her to oppose CAFTA.




Thank you for working to stop another job-killing trade deal.



In solidarity,



Working Families e-Activist Network, AFL-CIO
July 27, 2005

[Moses]

CAFTA passes House 217-215

Dem Ayes:

clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2005&rollnumber=443

Bean (She is the new Senator from Chicago and is vile-- a neocon GOP ringer)
Cooper (Tenn 5th-- no excuse-- not in interest of constituents)
Cuellar (Tx-28)
Dicks, Norm (Wa-6 - ranking)
Hinojosa, Ruben (Tx-15)
Jefferson (La-2)
Matheson, Jim (Ut-2)
Meeks (NY) (a known sleeper)
Moore, Dennis (KS)
Moran (VA) (Often votes w/ the big money, esp bankers)
Ortiz, Soloman (Tx-27)
Skelton (He has been voting for all kinds of Bush fascist legislation-- don't know why)
Snyder, Vic (Ark-2) (farmers?)
Tanner (Tenn-8)
Towns (NY 10th) (Bought-off, corrupt, a la Meeks)

[Moses]

Looking at the list, at least 3 of the 15 are black and members of the CBC. This means that 1/5 of those who voted to send jobs overseas and to lower wages are Black Democrats, and 2 of them from NY. This means that a higher percentage of blacks betrayed their constituencies than did whites. This demonstrates the hold the DLC has over black democratic candidates.

[Moses]

TREACHERY IN THE CAFTA VOTE:

So 20% of the Democrats that voted for CAFTA were Black-- Let's call them "BB's" Black Betrayers.

And I heard on the radio that many Republicans who within their constituent's hearing, expressed opposition to CAFTA, which will after all, bring poverty to their constituents, took a powder at Bush's request-- so perhaps we should look at the NVs to see who they are.

[Moses]

Here they are-- two dishonest politicians who lied to their constituents and disappeared for Bush's sake during the CAFTA vote. (Note that CAFTA passed by a two vote margin)

Davis, Jo Ann -- I believe that Jo Ann DAvis represents the 1st? district in Virginia -- Norfolk, etc. She is an AIPAC representative, and represents Ariel Sharon et al. It is a bitter irony that she purports to represent those serving in the US military, whereas she represents a cabal of elite insiders who have set out to kill her constituents. And now this.

Taylor (NC)-- He renamed French Fries "Freedom Fries" -- but is a slave to Bush and his elitist cabal, disappearing during the CAFTA vote, like Jo Ann Davis.

[Moses]

From the nest of slithering snakes:

Reverberations from CAFTA vote are still being felt on Hill
By Josephine Hearn

Political reverberations from last Wednesday’s late-night vote on the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) were still being felt on Capitol Hill this week, with heightened scrutiny falling on the 15 House Democrats and 27 House Republicans who crossed party lines on the pivotal trade pact.

For Democrats, the agreement was the most politically charged vote since bankruptcy reform, in which centrist Democrats infuriated progressives by siding with Republicans. This time, Democratic ire fell on those among the 15 who did not face pressure from their districts to back the measure, focusing on such members as secure New York Democrats Greg Meeks and Ed Towns. But Democrats also touted their unity, noting that no earlier trade vote had received less Democratic support.

Republicans grumbled about two panel chairmen, the Administration Committee’s Bob Ney (Ohio) and the Armed Services Committee’s Duncan Hunter (Calif.), whose votes against CAFTA required leaders to find other, more vulnerable members to support it.  

Two lawmakers who did not vote at all on the agreement, Reps. Charles Taylor (R-N.C.) and Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.), had to explain their apparent absences after the bill’s hour-long consideration, which amounted to a political drama not seen on the House floor since the three-hour Medicare vote in 2003.

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said the House floor resembled the set of “Let’s Make a Deal,” with Republicans seeking to squeeze out the last few votes needed to pass the agreement.

Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) switched his vote from a no to a yes on the floor after having told The Charlotte Observer two days earlier that he was “flat-out, completely, horizontally opposed to CAFTA.”

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over trade, implied that Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), the first Democrat publicly to back CAFTA, may have made a deal with the administration. Rangel recalled a conversation he had had with Cuellar when both attended a meeting at the White House several weeks ago.

“He gave me his personal assurances that if I helped this president [on CAFTA], that this president would be there for me,” Rangel recalled. “He said he knew this from personal experience.”
The day before the CAFTA vote, Rangel predicted fewer than 10 Democrats would back the bill.

Through a spokeswoman, Cuellar denied having made the remark.
“Congressman Cuellar continues to have the utmost respect for Congressman Rangel, but that statement is patently false. We will not dignify the remark with further comment,” the spokeswoman said.

Cuellar actively lobbied other Democrats to back the measure, as did Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), who earned a standing ovation from lobbyists and a word of thanks from the Speaker during one of the last business-coalition meetings with House leaders before the vote.

Meeks’s yes vote also triggered scrutiny. Meeks denied having made a deal with the administration.

“Though my heart was with my colleagues, my head and my conscience told me the right vote was for the agreement,” he said Thursday. “Everyone was talking to me, and I made the decision not based on any deals or any promises [but] based on what I thought was right.”

Meeks went on to say talk of a deal was “based on rumor and innuendo” and “who was my predecessor.”

Meeks succeeded former Rep. Floyd Flake (D), who received federal investment in his district after backing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

In a telephone interview Monday, Flake said he met with Meeks to discuss CAFTA about three weeks before the vote.

“Our discussion was what kind of reactions I got in supporting NAFTA and my feelings about it. At that point, [Meeks] was leaning toward voting for it,” Flake said. “We talked about getting more money for the district … by whatever means necessary. If you’re going to make the vote, then it ought to pay off for the district. That’s the way I see politics.”

Some liberal blogs have called for punishment for the “CAFTA 15” and have cheered labor unions’ pledge not to support members who backed the trade pact.  

But some Democratic observers said they thought that approach is misguided. “They shouldn’t be upset with the 15 Democrats. It should be ‘Punish the CAFTA 202,” said Dan Maffei, senior policy adviser to Rangel, noting the number of Republicans who voted for the measure. “It was really impressive that there were only 15 [who voted for it]. There was some disappointment with some members, but it was hardly a bad vote for Democrats.”

Unions have directed their ire at three members of the House Democrats’ 10-member Frontline program, Reps. Melissa Bean (Ill.), Jim Matheson (Utah) and Dennis Moore (Kan.), who supported CAFTA.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said he hoped unions would see beyond the single CAFTA vote.

“You had seven out of 10 who voted no. For the other three, we’re going to continue to build support. We hope elements of labor will see the totality of their records for working families,” he said.[ha!-- Bean voted for the Bankruptcy bill, and for the permanence of the Patriot Act!]

Meanwhile, business groups have made similar pledges not to support those who voted against CAFTA, leaving them with few Democrats to turn to on future efforts.

“The business community is looking to define who will be the next [former Rep.] Cal Dooley [D-Calif.] … It may be Jim Matheson or someone like him,” said Christopher Wenk, a lobbyist at the National Association of Manufacturers.

Defending his absence from the CAFTA vote rolls, Taylor said he had tried but the House’s electronic voting apparatus did not register his vote.

“Rep. Howard Coble and I voted no together. Due to an error, my no vote did not record on the voting machine,” he said in a statement.

His spokeswoman later said he had inadvertently used his voting card from the previous Congress.

Coble said he had not seen Taylor vote. He ran into Taylor on the floor just after voting.

“I bumped into Taylor and told him I had just voted no. He said, ‘So did I.’ I said, ‘Let’s get out of here.’ When you’re on the floor, you may have your arm broken,” Coble recalled. Taylor and Coble watched the rest of the vote on an internal television feed in an office elsewhere in the Capitol.

“We were talking about how there were still guys who hadn’t voted, so there’s no doubt in my mind that he thought he had voted. I didn’t see him insert the card in the machine. … I just believe he voted,” Coble said.

Davis, who opposed CAFTA, had been caught in bad weather on the 80-mile trip back from a canceled appearance before the Boy Scout Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, her spokesman said.

[Moses]

Cafta was backed by most U.S. companies such as computer-chip maker Intel Corp., software developer Microsoft Corp. and pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc., which say the trade deal will open up markets for their products and create momentum for further trade liberalization in this hemisphere and globally.



Democratic lawmakers argued that the agreement doesn't do enough to improve the conditions for workers in the region, and that means these countries will take jobs away from U.S. workers and are unlikely to develop into mature markets for American goods.

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=agWOlIZcvoHQ&refer=latin_america