TPA is H-1B on Steroids

Date: Thursday, May 23, 2002 12:21 PM

*** H-1B NEWSLETTER ***

Get the Facts on H-1B at
www.ZaZona.com

My ZaZona website is just about to become irrelevant thanks to George Bush.
There is a new monster in town that is so ugly that the job losses that H-1B
has caused will seem insignificant. This monster is called the Trade
Promotion Authority, or TPA for short.

I apologize for this very long newsletter and I know I have sent a lot of
them out lately.

PLEASE, READ THIS NEWSLETTER AND STUDY IT BEFORE YOU READ MY OTHER
NEWSLETTERS. IF YOU WANT TO WRITE NEWSPAPERS OR CONGRESS OR WHOMEVER, FORGET
ABOUT H-1B BECAUSE THAT WON'T BE OUR PROBLEM IF TPA IS PASSED.

In the first article pay particular attention to the term: "trade adjustment
assistance." What that boils down to is that Congress and Bush acknowledge
that TPA will put massive numbers of Americans out of work. They will give
these workers some payments somewhat like unemployment and to get training
in order to keep them happy. These "free traders" probably think they can
avoid rioting and mass violence if they feed the Americans who are displaced
from their globalist version of capitalism.

A Brief BackGrounder on TPA as seen at:
http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/H1BHistory.htm

TPA was formerly called Fast Track and will give President Bush authority to
negotiate NAFTA like trade agreements that include open border visas for
aliens that come to work in the United States. This free movement of
international labor will open our borders to labor markets and will render
nonimmigrant visas such as H-2A, H-2B, and H-1B unnecessary. These
agreements between the United States and other countries will possibly be
modeled after the NAFTA/TN visa. It will essentially open our borders to the
movement of labor and will eliminate the need for any type of labor
certification.

These agreements are being made because countries that are allowing our
companies into their territory argue that they do not have goods to trade,
but they do have vast supplies of labor. In other words, we can send them
our companies if we accept their workers. They argue that if we were willing
to make TN visas available to Canada, we should be willing to make similar
agreements with them. International companies favor these agreements because
they want to be able to send workers anywhere without immigration reviews
and visa hassles.

These trade bills are unique from other types of immigration laws in one
major way: they cannot be repealed by Congress without the consent of the
country the agreement was made with. Once these agreements are passed, the
American worker will be powerless to stop the flood of workers that will
arrive to compete with them in the job market.

International corporations have a tremendous incentive to support the Trade
Promotion Authority because they want to be able to move workers freely
across borders. Those who are trying to reduce operating costs by finding
cheaper sources of labor will obviously benefit by pitting workers of the
world against each other for scarce jobs. Salaries in the United States are
very high, and as Dr. Rubin states, "For an equivalent salary of one U.S.
professional, an organization could hire 9.1 professionals in India. This is
slightly better than last year when the ratio was 10.5 : 1."

Some of the important aspects of the Trade Promotion Authority are:

* These trade agreements cannot be revoked

* Congress will only have a Yes or No vote for each agreement

* Congress will give the President the power to negotiate agreements

* Borders will be open for the movement of workers

* Workers will compete for wages and work conditions in an open labor market
with open borders

* There will be no labor certification reviews to insure protection of
salaries and/or work conditions.

* Visas will be issued almost instantly with no questions asked.

* There will be only a minimal amount of documentation or review of the
immigration process required by the DOL, INS or other governmental agencies

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/0510trade10.html

Senators make deal on 'fast-track' trade

By Nick Anderson Los Angeles Times May 10, 2002

WASHINGTON - Democratic and Republican negotiators announced Thursday that

they had cleared obstacles to Senate passage of a bill granting President
Bush greater authority to negotiate international trade agreements.

Central to the agreement is a package of expanded benefits, including a 70
percent federal health insurance subsidy, for qualified workers who lose
jobs in domestic industries hurt by foreign competition.

Republicans also agreed to roughly double the number of workers eligible for
the program known as "trade adjustment assistance." Overall, the worker-aid
provisions would cost $10 billion to $12 billion over 10 years.

In exchange for those GOP concessions, Democratic negotiators agreed to drop
demands for a costly federal subsidy of retirement benefits for steelworkers
and certain restrictions on Mexican trucking on the United States.

The accord was reached by Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Charles E. Grassley,
R-Iowa, Phil Gramm, R-Texas, and John B. Breaux, D-La., and had the blessing
of the Senate majority and minority leaders. Senators also said the White
House was pleased with the progress.

"We have an agreement," Baucus told reporters. He called the
worker-assistance provisions "a huge improvement over current law."

The agreement means the Senate is likely to move within a week on a major
priority for the Bush administration and the business community - a bill
granting the president "trade promotion authority." That authority, also
known as "fast-track," would permit Bush to negotiate trade deals subject to
congressional approval on an up-or-down vote with no amendments.

The Senate will package the worker-assistance deal with the trade promotion
bill and a third bill to promote open trade with Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and
Ecuador.

The trade debate in the Senate has been stalled since the House narrowly
approved its own version of trade promotion authority in December. After
Senate passage, which now seems almost certain, the two chambers will have
to reconcile their differences and vote one more time before a bill can be
sent to Bush for his signature.

Most labor unions and environmental groups oppose the "fast-track" trade
legislation, arguing that it fails to protect workers' rights and weakens
environmental protections worldwide.

But Republicans praised Thursday's breakthrough, which would give Bush an
authority held by every president since Gerald R. Ford in 1974. The
authority lapsed in 1994, however, and then-President Clinton unsuccessfully
tried to regain it.

http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib168.html Go to link for tables and

click the following link for even more detail
http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/bp118.html

Where the jobs aren't Particular industries and states bear brunt of
dislocations wrought by trade agreements

by Robert E. Scott

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have experienced a net loss of
jobs since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994 and the creation of the WTO
in 1995. Between 1994 and 2000, the U.S. lost more than 3 million jobs and
job opportunities-equal to 2.3% of the labor force. (For details, see the
EPI Briefing Paper, Fast Track to Lost Jobs). Exports rose over the period,
but imports rose faster, yielding net job loss figures ranging from a low of
6,000 in North Dakota to a high of 310,000 in California. Other hard-hit
states-over 100,000 jobs lost in each-include Texas, New York, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, and Florida. These
states have high concentrations of the kinds of industries (motor vehicles,
textiles and apparel, computers and electrical appliances) for which
production has moved to export-processing zones in China, Mexico, and other
countries since the implementation of NAFTA and the WTO.

Table 1 details job losses in each state by industry category.

Job losses caused by rapidly growing trade deficits increased six times as
rapidly between 1994 and 2000 as they did between 1989 and 1994. Persistent
barriers to U.S. exports (as well as overvaluation of the U.S. dollar) have
contributed to these growing deficits, but the North American Free Trade
Agreement and the World Trade Organization were supposed to overcome these
barriers. Instead, trade deficits have accelerated, with resulting job
losses:

Every state and the District of Columbia lost jobs equaling at least 1.2% of
their workforce because of U.S. trade policies under NAFTA and the WTO.

The 10 states suffering the highest rates of job losses are Rhode Island

(5.8%), North Carolina (3.7%), Maine (3.6%), Tennessee (3.6%), Indiana
(3.4%), Mississippi (3.3%), Michigan (3.2%), Alabama (3.1%), Arkansas
(3.1%), and South Carolina (3.0%). (For a full list, see Fast Track to Lost
Jobs, Table 2B.)

Nearly two out of every three jobs (1.9 million out of 3.0 million) lost

were in manufacturing.

In some manufacturing sub-sectors, job losses increased even faster than

they did overall: 497.2% in transportation equipment; 448.6% in
communications equipment; 363.8% in paper and allied products; 308.7% in
petroleum refining and related products; and 207.5% in fabricated metal
products (excluding machinery and transportation equipment).

Outside manufacturing, the sectors that experienced the most rapid

acceleration of job losses were financial, insurance, and real estate
(201.6%); communications (195.6%); construction (188.8%); and transportation
(180.9%).

Table 1: Trade- related job losses by state, 1994- 2000

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/0
5/21 /BU210110.DTL

Senate to vote on presidential trade authority this week Law would reduce
influence of Congress David Armstrong, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, May
21, 2002 Š2002 San Francisco Chronicle

A crucial vote on international trade is expected this week, when the U.S.

Senate will decide whether to grant the Bush administration the authority to
strike deals with foreign countries that cannot be amended by Congress.

Under such trade promotion authority, formerly known as fast track, Congress
would approve or reject trade deals in their entirety rather than amend them
piecemeal as they are now handled.

Presidents from Gerald Ford to Bill Clinton had such authority. But it
expired in 1994 and Clinton, weakened by the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky
investigations, did not have the political strength to get it back.

The Bush administration has heralded international trade as the key to
prosperity.

In December, a trade authority bill squeaked through the House of
Representatives on a vote of 215-214 and is supported by most Republicans
and business groups, who say robust trade creates jobs here and abroad and
provides U.S. companies with expanded markets.

It is opposed by many Democrats, environmentalists and organized labor, who
say it sends American jobs to low-wage, highly polluted developing
countries.

Opponents of the authority also say it cedes too much power to the executive
branch, at the expense of Congress, which is constitutionally charged with
regulating foreign trade.

The vote in the Senate, with 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans and one
independent, is expected to be close, with most observers expecting a
handful of free-trade Democrats to help pass the bill.

"From the point of view of the people on the ground doing business, (trade
promotion authority) is critically important," said Tom Pinansky, chairman
of the Asia-Pacific Council of the American Chambers of Commerce. "With (the
authority), we can trade more, export more and create more jobs in the U.S."

Trade is especially important to California, which is the nation's largest t
rading state, with $106.8 billion worth of exported goods in 2001 -- 15
percent of all U.S. exports. Lowering foreign tariffs, slashing quotas and
removing other barriers will help the state's computer-makers, software
companies and farmers, say free-trade boosters.

The trade authority would help streamline negotiations and speed up a
sometimes-frustrating process. U.S. negotiators now take a long time to
negotiate deals with other countries because they have to include a lot of
provisions that they believe Congress might want to take out or rewrite.

The United States has been negotiating a free-trade pact with Singapore for
two years and a treaty with Chile for eight years. In the meantime, Chile
signed a free-trade agreement with the European Union, which trade advocates
say puts the United States at a competitive disadvantage.

California exports are lagging due to the recent U.S. recession and sluggish
economies in Asia. California exported $22.5 billion worth of goods in the
first quarter of 2002, down nearly 26 percent from the first quarter of
2001.

"The debate over the issues can seem abstract," said Grant Aldonas, Bush's
undersecretary for international trade. "But by and large, it's a pocketbook
issue, especially for Northern California."

Aldonas said tariffs on U.S.-made information technology, for example, are
set at a stiff 34 percent in Brazil. If, as the Bush administration hopes, a
Free Trade Area of the Americas can be crafted by 2005, that tariff would
drop to zero, helping high-tech exporters in the United States.

Senate debate on presidential fast-track authority is expected to start
today, but passage is far from certain. Democrats have tacked non-trade
amendments onto the bill, which Republicans hope to shed when the bill is
voted on. Backers of the legislation oppose piggybacking other issues on the
trade bill.

"My fear is that Congress can load the thing up with amendments so it will
fall of its own weight," said Joseph W. Harrison, president of the
California Council for International Trade.

Supporters said passage of the bill is critical to the growth of global
trade. U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Zoellick said the Uruguay round
of talks that created the World Trade Organization, plus the North American
Free Trade Agreement of 1994, "have been responsible for annual gains of
between $1, 260 and $2,040 (in income) for the average American family of
four."

Trade between the United States and Mexico has tripled to $250 billion a
year since NAFTA started, but the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen
says NAFTA has also cost at least 360,000 Americans their jobs.

- ---- Executive decision THE ISSUE: The trade promotion authority would
give the president power to strike trade deals with other countries that
Congress could approve or reject but not amend SUPPORTERS: Business groups
such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Electronics Association,
National Retail Federation OPPONENTS: Labor and environmental groups,
including the AFL-CIO and the Ralph Nader-affiliated Public Citizen
TIMETABLE: The Senate opens debate today and may vote by week's end .
Source: Chronicle research E-mail David Armstrong at
davidarmstrong@sfchronicle.com., Chronicle news services contributed to this
report.

Š2002 San Francisco Chronicle Page B - 1

Back to archives