Progress Now Action

Just before boarding a plane to the Mariana Islands in 1999, then-Congressman Bob Schaffer announced he was embarking on a fact-finding mission to get to the bottom of repeated allegations of labor abuse in the American protectorate.

"I plan to walk right into those factories and living quarters to see for myself what conditions exist," Schaffer said in a news release in August of that year.

What he didn't say was that the trip was partly arranged by the firm of now-jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who represented textile factory owners fighting congressional efforts to reform labor and immigration laws on the islands and who was being handsomely paid to keep the islands' cherished exemptions.

Schaffer and his wife stayed for free at a palm-studded beach resort and, besides factories, also toured historical sites and met with clients of Preston-

Gates, Abramoff's firm, according to a copy of the trip's agenda archived in Schaffer's congressional papers.

He left believing that allegations of widespread abuse were largely unfounded -- blaming them on Big Labor's efforts to shut down a booming textile industry allowed to use the "Made in USA" label but dependent on tens of thousands of imported workers.

In a recent interview with The Denver Post, the Republican candidate for Colorado's open Senate seat described the protectorate's guest-worker program as a "model" lawmakers could use as they overhaul the U.S. immigration system...

If you haven't already, please call Senator Salazar and urge him to vote against the latest NAFTA agreement coming before the Senate for a vote tomorrow.

With your help, the House vote sounded a death knell for President Bush's expansion of NAFTA as the basis for future trade agreements. However, the Senate hasn't gotten the message. The vote was not supposed to occur so soon, yet now is expected tomorrow! The Senate needs to listen to what you helped a majority of House Democrats declare with their votes: We can't afford any more NAFTAs.

We can't afford any more NAFTA. With the highest U.S. trade deficit ever, and more than 3 million high-paying manufacturing jobs lost during the NAFTA era, we can't afford any more NAFTA-like trade deals. If Congress allows the Peru or Panama FTAs, big corporations will use these deals to ship more U.S. jobs away and push down the wages of jobs staying here. More family farmers and small businesses will go bankrupt.

The Peru NAFTA expansion will fuel the drug war. Decades of U.S. efforts to get poor Peruvian farmers to grow food crops instead of coca could be undone as tons of imported U.S. food crops flood into Peru. The Peru NAFTA expansion will undermine years (and billions of tax dollars worth) of our drug-eradication efforts by forcing the same NAFTA-style farm and food rules onto Peruvian farmers that resulted in 1.3 million Mexican campesinos losing their livelihoods. It is not only a moral outrage to so threaten so many of Peru's poorest citizens - the results will boomerang back on the Unites States with more coca production and more desperate people making the dangerous attempt to migrate here when their livelihoods at home are destroyed.

The Peru NAFTA expansion gives corporations too much power over Social Security. The Peru NAFTA expansion could allow Citibank or other U.S. investors providing "private retirement accounts" to sue Peruvian taxpayers in foreign tribunals demanding million in compensation if Peru tries to reverse its failed Social Security privatization. Americans don't want our own Social Security system privatized, so how can we use trade agreements to go around locking in other countries privatized systems that have resulted in the very damage we sought to avoid for ourselves? That is a terrible precedent.

The Peru NAFTA expansion will tie Congress' hands when it comes to food safety. The Peru NAFTA expansion agreement would replicate the NAFTA-WTO limits on Congress' ability to protect our food safety -- while increasing the amount of unsafe food imports. Some of the very policies Congress is now considering to tackle the imported food safety crisis would be threatened to challenge as 'illegal trade barriers.' We need to enhance our food safety system, not continue to weaken it!

The Peru NAFTA expansion threatens the upper Amazon basin, the most biodiverse area on earth. The current Peruvian president is opening up new, extremely sensitive tracts of pristine Amazon jungle to oil and gas exploration by the same multinationals that have caused mass environmental devastation in the region in the past. The trade deal's investment rules would lock in the rights to rip up the Amazon, even if future Peruvian governments reversed this terrible policy - allowing foreign investors to challenge desperately needed environmental laws and chilling future efforts to protect the environment.

Please call Senator Salazar right now - before it is too late.

I just called Rep. Perlmutter's office. According to the person who deals with trade issues, Ed has not yet decided how to vote on the US-Peru FTA (HR 3688). This seems odd because the vote is scheduled today.

PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TODAY AND URGE HIM/HER TO VOTE AGAINST THE US-PERU FTA.

The switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.

UPDATE:  The vote has been put off until November 8, 2007.  You still have time to call.  For a report from Columbia University on how bad this agreement still is see http://action.credomobile.com/sirota/2007/11/report_peru_labor_provisions_w.html.

Statehouse Republicans want to deny bail to illegal immigrants accused of repeat drunken driving and serious felonies, and require proof of citizenship to vote.

The proposals announced Tuesday were part of the GOP's 2008 legislative package aimed at advancing a state crackdown on illegal immigration...

Democrats argued that feeding, housing and clothing inmates "indefinitely" could eat up money intended for education and other priorities.

Another Republican proposal released ahead of the legislative session starting in January would require jails to determine the immigration status of all detainees when they are booked.

Other measures focus on ensuring only citizens vote in elections.

One would require photo identification at the polls and another would call for proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Republicans concede they don't believe many illegal immigrants are voting, but said that's not the point.

With the presidential primary season kicking into high gear, both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly nervous about taking unpopular positions.

And what could be more unpopular than supporting NAFTA expansion deals that will offshore more good U.S. jobs, trash the environment, jack up medicine prices, threaten food safety and impoverish millions of small farmers in Latin America - driving new waves of desperate immigration?

But politicians in both parties also are eager to hoover up donations from multinational corporations and the other special interests who benefit at our expense from NAFTA style deals. So, the Senate Finance Committee has quietly decided to test the waters on NAFTA expansion by holding a hearing tomorrow to kick off the process towards passing the Peru NAFTA expansion - formally called the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

All four of the pending NAFTA expansions to Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea were sunk - thanks to your activism - until a backroom deal on May 10th by some Democratic trade leaders. The deal added improved labor standards to the Bush-negotiated NAFTA expansions. Yet, the deal did not remove any of the core NAFTA provisions that are the main cause of job loss and wage drops here, cause the displacement of small farmers in our trade partner countries, and empower foreign investors to attack our basic health and environmental laws in foreign tribunals.

Outrageously, in the midst of the imported food safety crisis, NAFTA-expansions like those to Peru and Panama will worsen imported food and product safety problems.

And, unbelievably, the U.S.-Peru FTA would lock in Social Security privatization in Peru, even as Democratic presidential candidates compete to see who can make stronger promises to protect against privatization here at home.

Not surprisingly, not a single union in the U.S. supports the deal or the resulting NAFTA expansions. Also opposing is Oxfam and an array of environmental, faith, consumer and family farm groups. And, the two major labor federations in Peru have just sent a letter to Democrats in the U.S. Congress, urging them to reject the agreement.

In their own letter to Congress (PDF), prominent U.S. Latino groups have called on Congress to stop Bush's NAFTA expansion - expressing concerns that the U.S.-Peru FTA will reduce rural incomes in Peru and increase the pressure on impoverished Peruvians to migrate - legally or illegally - to the United States.

The Democratic leadership is attempting to revive the “compromise immigration bill.”  They just don’t get it – nobody likes this bill.  Whether conservative, liberal or leftist, the American public recognizes that this bill is bad news.  A recent poll from Rasmussen Reports demonstrates how out of touch the supporters of this bill are: 

As the Senate prepares to resume debate the “comprehensive” immigration reform bill, the legislation continues to face broad public opposition. In fact, despite a massive White House effort, public opinion has barely moved since the public uproar stalled the bill just over two weeks ago.

 

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 22% of American voters currently favor the legislation. That’s down a point from 23% a couple of weeks ago from 26% when the debate in the Senate began. Fifty percent (50%) oppose the Senate bill while 28% are not sure.

 

Among the public, there is a bi-partisan lack of enthusiasm for the Senate bill.  It is supported by 22% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 22% of those not affiliated with either major party.  It is opposed by 52% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats, and 48% of unaffiliateds.

 

From an ideological perspective, the bill is opposed by 59% of conservatives, 54% of liberals, and 45% of political moderates. Among those for whom none of the traditional ideological labels apply, just 20% are opposed.

 

Support is found from 20% of conservatives, 32% of liberals, and 18% of moderates.

 

Just 32% believe it would be better to pass the current bill instead of doing nothing. Forty-five percent (45%) believe it would be better to pass nothing at all.

 

If the current bill passed, 71% of American voters believe that another bill would be required to focus on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration. That’s up from 65% in our previous survey.

 

Rasmussen Reports and other firms have consistently found majority support for a hypothetical bill combining border security and legalized status for the 12 million or so illegal aliens already in the country. However, the data has also shown a huge gap between support for the actual legislation and a hypothetical bill. The reason for the gap is simple -- reducing illegal immigration is the first priority for voters but only 16% believe the Senate bill would reduce illegal immigration.  In fact, 41% believe the Senate bill would make things worse and lead to even more illegal immigration.

Bernie Sanders - for my money the only true "progressive" in the Senate - makes the case very well at Link.  Bernie Sanders was joined by AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka at a Capitol Hill news conference to spell out how an immigration bill now under consideration by the Senate would hurt workers in the United States and other countries. Edward Sullivan, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, and United Food and Commercial Workers President Joe Hansen also participated in the press conference.

This bill is bad for everyone.  Write Senator Salazar and tell him to vote against it.

The New York Times is reporting that the National Labor Relations Board has filed an unfair labor practice complaint against Starbucks for firing, intimidating and interrogating employees who supported efforts to unionize four of its stores in New York City. Apparently, this isn't the first time Starbucks has been caught violating the law:

"Thirteen months ago, Starbucks reached a settlement with the Industrial Workers of the World, agreeing to offer jobs back to two workers and to pay nearly $2,000 to several employees after the labor board brought a separate set of charges against the company, accusing it of illegally seeking to quash efforts to unionize." Article...

Over the years, I have become addicted to their high priced coffee.  I even got gift cards from my kids for my birthday.  Well, I guess that is all gone now - until Starbucks cleans up its act.

While it may not be as much fun as kicking Scott McInnis or Bob Schaffer, the availability of affordable heath care is far more important.

For those of you who don’t know it, a commission to study health care proposals and report to the legislature is in full swing - 208 Commission. They are conducting hearings to receive comments from the public about what needs to be done. Formal proposals for consideration by the commission are due April 1, 2007.

Some very good people at Health Care for All Colorado have put together a proposal for a single-payer system to be submitted to the commission. They have done a very comprehensive job. (Even preparing proposed legislation for those detailed oriented of us who believe that the devil is always in the details.) I highly recommend that everyone read their proposal and give them your comments.

As important - SEND THEM MONEY! They will be facing an array of insurance company and health care industry opponents who have virtually unlimited resources.

Ever sat down and listened to a filibuster? Sometimes it's interesting, sometimes it's a bunch of petulant Republicans overly enamored with the sound of their own voice. Like today, reports Colorado Confidential:

A bill that seeks to make it easier for labor unions to obtain job shops, places where newly hired workers are required to join a union where a union election has been won, is being debated at this moment in the Senate chambers, with Republican lawmakers looking to attach amendments to the measure.

Moody noted that Colorado labor unions helped to raise millions of dollars to support Democratic candidates this year. As the party of labor, Democrats have an obligation to support union organizing, she said.

"I don't believe the host committee has put the same amount of pressure on the Pepsi Center as they are on the unions," said Moody.