Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 19:55:10 -0700 To: Norm Matloff Subject: Rob Sanchez told you so To: age discrimination/H-1B/L-1 e-newsletter Many of you will recall the issue of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) which came up in Congress last year. Basically, TPA gives the President carte blanche for making trade treaties, which, one must keep in mind, includes not only goods but also services, i.e. LABOR. If the President signs a treaty, under TPA Congress would lose its line-item veto of individual issues in the treaty. Congress would only be able to vote up or down on the treaty as a whole, and since there would be tons of pork for special interests, Congress would not dare vote down. At the time Rob Sanchez warned that TPA could give rise to treaties which made reform of H-1B/L-1 impossible, and maybe even liberalize them. I followed suit, posting to this e-newsletter both Rob's concerns and various documents about TPA. I remember one journalist told me that she had brought up these concerns with a pro-TPA lobbyist, and that the latter had replied, "Oh come on, that's really a stretch." Well, folks, "T-h-e-y'r-e h-e-r-e!" The first hit we're going to take under TPA has now occurred. You can see all the details at http://www.fairus.org/html/07444306.htm but here's a summary: On May 6 of this year, President Bush signed the Singapore Free Trade Agreement. As an FTA, it is technically not a treaty and thus need not be ratified by the Senate. If Congress did wish to get involved, though, it would apparently have to vote down the entire FTA, which as I said above is unlikely to happen. Annex 11A, Section III (2) of the Singapore FTA agrees, for intracompany transfers (i.e. L-1): A Party shall not: (a) as a condition for temporary entry under paragraph 1, require labor certification tests or other procedures of similar effect; or (b) impose or maintain any numerical restriction relating to temporary entry under paragraph 1. In other words, the agreement prohibits the U.S. from tightening the L-1 visa requirements. For example, imposing a prevailing-wage requirement would arguably violate clause (a). The U.S. is now in the process of setting up similar agreements with some other nations. Norm