This morning is a time to shake off the cobwebs of conventionitis. Conventionitis is a serious form of mental illness brought on by being cooped up in a climate-controlled atmosphere, where the air you breathe is not real, and the steady hum of many voices conversing at a low pitch combines to penetrate the brain at a subconscious level, drilling down painlessly but effectively to deaden reflexes and processing of ideas. And, then, there are the odors…but I’ll pass on that description. Time to move on.

    In good news: yesterday, a group of Congressional leaders–and I mean leaders in the sense that they take leadership, not that they hold some exalted post…posts that often make them not leaders but suppressors of leadership–set out to stick a shiv in so-called "free trade" agreements. Any reader of this blog knows what I think of so-called "free trade": it’s a marketing phrase used to aid the imposing of a harsh economic regime of declining wages and corporate power around the globe. The plundering of the world’s resources–human and physical–does not increase or decline based solely on the imposition of so-called "free trade" deals but these deals to grease the process.

    So, we now have something to rally around: the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development, and Employment Act of 2008 (whew, you know, titles like that get me all hot and bothered). The leaders on this bill are Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Representative Mike Michaud (ME-2), two guys who have been regular, consistent defenders of workers’ rights since the very first day they took office (and I don’t believe they have ever needed to throw back a shot of whiskey to prove it, either).

    The bill has some interesting things that I want to touch on:

    Labor rights If passed, the bill would require that every trade deal this country enters into would–

…meet the following requirements:

(1) LABOR STANDARDS.—The labor provisions shall—

(A) be included in the text of the agreement;

(B) require that a country that is party to the agreement adopt and maintain as part of its domestic law and regulations (including in

any designated zone in that country), the core labor standards and effectively enforce laws directly related to those standards and to acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health;

(C) prohibit a country that is a party to the agreement from waiving or otherwise derogating from its laws and regulations relating to

the core labor standards and acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and

health;

(D) require each country that is a party to the agreement to adopt into domestic law and enforce effectively core labor standards;

(E) provide that failures to meet the labor standards required by the agreement shall be subject to dispute resolution and enforcement mechanisms and penalties that are at least as effective as the mechanisms and penalties that apply to the commercial provisions of the agreement;

(F) strengthen the capacity of each country that is a party to the agreement to promote and enforce core labor standards; and

(G) establish a commission of independent experts who shall receive, review, and adjudicate any complaint filed under the labor pro24

visions of the trade agreement, and vest the commission with the authority to establish objective indicators to determine compliance with the obligations set forth in subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), (E), and (F).

    Again, readers here know that I’ve been quite critical of the "side agreements" put in place in so-called "free trade" deals that address labor and the environment because these side deals are just slapped on as a way of buying votes but don’t really change the nature of so-called "free trade" deals as basically imposing corporate conditions and protections. I must say I remain skeptical that any labor provisions in future deals can be truly enforceable–we can’t even enforce our own labor and safety and health laws here. What makes us think we can ensure that that stuff will be looked after in another country with far fewer resources to deploy to protect workers, not to mention the inclination to do so. But, heck, I’d fight for the above just to try.

    There are some other areas, though, that are as important that bear talking about. The first relates to services:

If the agreement contains provisions related to the provision of services, such provisions shall—

(A) preserve the right of Federal, State, and local governments to maintain essential public services and to regulate, for the benefit

of the public, services provided to consumers in the United States by establishing a general exception to the national treatment commitments in the agreement that allows distinctions between United States and foreign service providers and qualifications or limitations on the provision of services;

(B)(i) require each country that is a party to the agreement to establish a list of each service sector that will be subject to the obligations of the country under the agreement; and

(ii) apply the agreement only to the service sectors that are on the list described in clause

(i);

(C) establish a general exception to market access obligations that allows a country that is a party to the agreement to maintain or establish a ban on services the country considers harmful, if the ban is applied to domestic and foreign services and service providers alike;

(D) require service providers in any country that is a party to the agreement that provide services to consumers in the United States

to comply with United States privacy, transparency, professional qualification, and consumer access laws and regulations;

    Basically, in English, that means that bad shit can’t be done in the name of so-called "free trade". Trade deals won’t be able to override or degrade standards. Bravo!

    And here’s a beaut. The act, if passed, would put some limits on the power of corporations or individual speculators to tear up a country’s economy for speculative purposes:

INVESTMENT PROVISIONS.—If the agreement contains provisions related to investment, such

provisions shall—

(A) preserve the ability of each country that is a party to the agreement to regulate foreign investment in a manner consistent with the needs and priorities of the country;

(B) allow each such country to place reasonable restrictions on speculative capital to reduce global financial instability and trade volatility;

    Meaning, that a country has a right to regulate foreign investment so things like the battering of a country’s currency (are you listening, George Soros?) cannot happen as easily as so-called "free trade" deals now permit. And, further in the section, there’s another key piece to that:

E) provide for government-to-government dispute resolution relating to a government action that destroys all value of the real property of a foreign investor rather than dispute resolution between the government that took the action and the foreign investor;

    Meaning, companies won’t be able to bring legal action against government actions; disputes will need to be worked out between governments.

    And, with an eye to openness, Section4, Clause 11 declares that:

(C) provide that dispute resolution proceedings are open to the public and provide timely public access to information regarding enforcement, disputes, and ongoing negotiations related to disputes.

    No more secret tribunals taking place out of the public eye.

    And, finally, and this is kind of interesting. The way I read the following is that tt provides for state input into trade:

(14) FEDERALISM.—The agreement may only require a State government to comply with procurement, investment, or services provisions contained in the agreement if the State government has been consulted in full and has given explicit consent to be bound by such provisions.

    Meaning, there is now a chance for the people, via their state governments, to influence the nature of future trade agreements. I’m seeking clarification from the legislators on this and will update if I’m wrong.

    And the media’s response to this? No story in The New York Times, Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal. Now, this is understandable given the media’s support for so-called "free trade" on the editorial pages of virtually all of the country’s major newspapers. But, it’s pathetic that a serious proposal on this subject not be given extensive coverage.