<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Trebuchet MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Bell MT";
panose-1:2 2 5 3 6 3 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">“ … a surprising range of Obama’s political legacy will be put at risk if the TPP is approved … [climate change, healthcare costs, auto industry, gay rights, financial
reform] … Why would President Obama put so much of his legacy at risk? The simple answer is, we don’t know…”<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Opinion: Hillary Clinton doesn’t get it: Paul Krugman, Bernie Sanders and the truth about the free trade scam<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Salon<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">By Paul Rosenberg<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">March 18, 2016<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/03/18/hillary_clinton_doesnt_get_it_paul_krugman_bernie_sanders_and_the_truth_about_the_free_trade_scam/">http://www.salon.com/2016/03/18/hillary_clinton_doesnt_get_it_paul_krugman_bernie_sanders_and_the_truth_about_the_free_trade_scam/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">In the wake of Bernie Sanders stunning upset victory in the Michigan primary, there’s a renewed recognition that the negative impacts of global trade matter—a lot. There’s still a broad
assumption Clinton will easily win the nomination, but there’s been some talk that she might consider Sherrod Brown, Ohio’s staunchly anti-”free trade” senator as her running mate. And of course, as the New York Times dwells on, Clinton is “sharpening” her
“message on jobs and trade.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">But Michigan matters not just for Clinton, but for the Democratic Party as a whole. And it’s going to take much more than sharper messaging to actually make a difference in people’s
lives. It’s not just a matter of changing policies around the edges—as Clinton now says that she wants to do—the entire corporate-dominated policymaking process that produces such deals needs to be done away with, and replaced with something far more open,
democratic and informed by long-term realism. And that can only happen through a mobilization of political will—or as Sanders would call it, “a political revolution.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">Clinton’s messaging shift is a good indication of how far the establishment is from grasping what’s actually needed. As the Times notes, she’s always been upbeat in the past, stressing
“inclusiveness,” as the neoliberal lexicon would have it:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">“I want to be the president for the struggling, the striving and the successful,” she often said.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">But now, she’s signaled a change:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">Stung by the bad showing, Mrs. Clinton was already recalibrating her message, even altering her standard line before the Michigan race had been called. “I don’t want to be the president
for those who are already successful — they don’t need me,” she said at a rally Tuesday night in Cleveland. “I want to be the president for the struggling and the striving.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">It’s a characteristically breathtaking move on Clinton’s part. It sounds great, of course. But how can she be a president for the struggling and striving when she’s so out of touch with
them that she’s been blindsided by the brokenness of their dreams? There’s so much more than messaging that needs to be adjusted here. As Paul Krugman now admits, “much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest…. So the elite case for ever-freer
trade is largely a scam.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">Just as Clinton, the candidate, was so disconnected from public anger, and the objective suffering it springs from, the entire policy apparatus around trade has for years been totally
disconnected from virtually anyone outside of the corporate sector.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">That might sound hyperbolic, but it’s quite literally true. Last year, when an early Senate vote on the Trans Pacific Partnership was about to be held, the Intercept explained that “Even
members of Congress can only look at it one section at a time in the Capitol’s basement, without most of their staff or the ability to keep notes.” Hence, the only way the public knew what was in the TPP ahead of time was through Wikileaks. Things were different
for our corporate overlords, however:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">But there’s an exception: if you’re part of one of 28 U.S. government-appointed trade advisory committees providing advice to the U.S. negotiators. The committees with the most access
to what’s going on in the negotiations are 16 “Industry Trade Advisory Committees,” whose members include AT&T, General Electric, Apple, Dow Chemical, Nike, Walmart and the American Petroleum Institute.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">As an illustration of how this works, the Intercept noted:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">[T]he Energy and Energy Services committee includes the National Mining Association and America’s Natural Gas Alliance but only one representative from a company dedicated to less-polluting
wind and solar energy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">The fundamental problem here is not the trade deals themselves—horrendous as they may be (more on that below)—but the super-secretive policy apparatus that produces them, the norms by
which it functions, and the comfortable cluelessness with which it’s accepted as perfectly normal, if not axiomatically unquestionable, by our governing elites—both here in America and around the world. It’s all done in the name of “free trade,” of course,
but the corporate-dominated reality just described is closer in spirit to the mercantilism of the pre-Adam Smith era..<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">To see just how ludicrous the “free trade” label is, consider the beginning of this brief post from economist Dean Baker, writing at the world’s oldest blog:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">Hey, can an experienced doctor from Germany show up and start practicing in New York next week? Since the answer is no, we can say that we don’t have free trade.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">Protectionism is the rule when it comes to high-income professions, as Baker has been pointing out for years. In fact, it’s gotten stronger. And not just for professions, of course:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">We also have strengthened patent and copyright protections, making drugs and other affected items far more expensive. These protections are also forms of protectionism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">The thing is “free trade” sounds so good … so free! It’s definitely good messaging. No? Well, not if you’re trying to think straight, in an effort to design policies that actually work.
And that’s the real challenge that Democrats face—whichever candidate’s side they are on just now. Because the problem’s not going to go away any time soon. That problem is much harder for Clinton precisely because she’s so deeply wedded to the system as it
currently exists. Even if she genuinely wanted to start fixing things, how could she possibly proceed? But given the sorry state of Democratic Party as a whole, it’s going to be very challenging for Sanders as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">After Sanders’ upset win in Michigan, there were a number of predictable responses, portraying Sanders’ views as simplistic—much like Donald Trump’s, get it?—such as this from Washington
Monthly‘s blog, pointing out that Michigan’s industrial decline started well before NAFTA—as anyone who’s seen “Roger and Me” knows very well. But this kind of analysis, though historically well founded, is nonetheless off-base: The real-world challenge is
not uprooting historic wrongs, but struggling against current wrongs and preventing future ones. NAFTA still matters because the damage it’s done is still ongoing, it’s been replicated, and the mechanisms driving it have spread, not because anyone thinks it’s
the sole source of problems in Michigan or anywhere else.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">In late 2013, just before NAFTA turned 20, Jeff Faux, founder of the Economic Policy Institute, wrote an assessment of what NAFTA had meant. He called it “A Template for Neoliberal Globalization,”
and highlighted four main ways it had impacted American workers:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as companies moved their production to Mexico, where labor was cheaper….<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">Second, NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits….<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">Third, NAFTA drove several million Mexican workers and their families out of the agriculture and small business sectors, which could not compete with the flood of products—often subsidized—from
U.S. producers. This dislocation was a major cause of the dramatic increase of undocumented workers in the United States….<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">Fourth, and ultimately most importantly, NAFTA created a template for the rules of the emerging global economy, in which the benefits would flow to capital and the costs to labor. Among
other things, NAFTA granted corporations extraordinary protections against national labor laws that might threaten profits, set up special courts—chosen from rosters of pro-business experts—to judge corporate suits against governments, and at the same time
effectively denied legal status to workers and unions to defend themselves in these new cross-border jurisdictions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">Although all four of these impacts were devastating, the last one is what’s most important going forward. It’s what’s animating the TPP process and every other trade agreement in the
works. So long as trade rules are written by the corporations, for the corporations, the rights, the dignity and the self-determination of the American people are all fundamentally threatened.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">In fact, a surprising range of Obama’s political legacy will be put at risk if the TPP is approved—as explained by Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division just before Obama’s last
State of the Union.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">It threatened President Obama’s legacy on the climate change and the environment:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">The environmental groups that have celebrated Obama’s achievements with the global climate treaty and his decision to the stop the XL Pipeline call the TPP an act of “climate denial.”
…. Environmental groups listed on the White House website as supporting the deal, including NRDC and Defenders of Wildlife, in fact came out in opposition after seeing the final text.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">It threatened President Obama’s legacy of reducing healthcare costs:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">The TPP would directly contradict Obama efforts to reduce U.S. healthcare costs by expanding monopoly patent protections for big drug firms, as Doctors Without Borders notes. This allows
drug firms to stop competition and raise medicine prices.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">It threatened President Obama’s legacy of rescuing the American Auto industry:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">The TPP would threaten the president’s successful rescue of the U.S. auto industry and thousands of U.S. jobs. It would allow vehicles comprised mainly of Chinese and other non-TPP country
parts and labor to gain duty free access…. Ford has supported all past U.S. trade deals, but opposes the TPP.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">It threatened President Obama’s legacy of expanding gay rights:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">[I]t decided to allow Brunei to remain in the TPP even after the country announced that it would begin stoning to death gays and single mothers under new sharia-based laws. This has
led to LGBTQ groups joining the TPP opposition. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">It threatened President Obama’s legacy of financial reform:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">The TPP could help banks unravel the new rules Obama achieved on Wall Street by prohibiting bans on risky financial products and “too big to fail” safeguards while empowering foreign
banks to “sue” the U.S. government over new financial regulations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">Why would President Obama put so much of his legacy at risk? The simple answer is, we don’t know. Perhaps he doesn’t think the threats are real—unlike those who are most directly endangered
by the risks. If the TPP process were open and democratic, there would have been an opportunity to dialog, and at the very least gain some understanding of Obama’s thinking. At most, his thinking could have been fundamentally changed. But neither possibility
existed in the secretive backroom process that’s been normalized under neoliberalism’s rules. And that’s what’s got to end.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">This profound disconnect gets to the very heart of what America’s trade problems are all about—a fundamental lack of democratic governance over a realm of law and policy that increasingly
shapes the landscapes of our daily lives as the world grows ever smaller, ever more interconnected.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">It’s not just Obama, of course. Most of the Democratic Party establishment seems to accept this situation, even if they may not go along with any one particular trade deal. Hillary Clinton
now says that she opposes the TPP, whereas she previously referred to it as “the gold standard.” What’s changed? Who knows? No one, apparently, has asked her. But she clearly didn’t have a problem with the process, or she would have objected to it long ago—just
as Bernie Sanders did.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">Clinton tries to spin her late decision as more thoughtful, more nuanced, more deliberative. But given that the process itself is so profoundly flawed—secretive, anti-democratic, dominated
by corporate special interests—there’s every reason to see Sanders’ position as being both more principled and more thoughtful, more penetrating in terms of grasping what the real issues and problems are.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">One further point needs to be added here. In describing why elite defenses of globalization were a scam, Krugman noted:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">[T]he conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins — but we now have an ideology utterly
opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">In short, you need Bernie Sanders-style democratic socialism in order for honest pro-globalization arguments to work!
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">This is not just a primary campaign question between these two candidates. The entire Democratic Party needs to fundamentally rethink what its trade policy should be. As it now stands,
the party simply accepts that trade agreements are written secretly behind closed doors by government officials from different countries consulting with lawyers and lobbyists from (mostly transnational) large corporations. The interests of the American public
in general (or any other public around the world) simply don’t enter into the process. There are no labor, environmental, public health or consumer advocates involved. It’s understandable why the GOP might like such a system. It’s beyond belief that the Democratic
Party has never even seriously questioned it. The time to start questioning it—seriously—has finally arrived. And the time for action is next.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Bell MT","serif"">Michael F. Dolan, J.D.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Bell MT","serif"">Legislative Representative<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Bell MT","serif"">International Brotherhood of Teamsters<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Bell MT","serif"">Desk 202.624.6891<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Bell MT","serif"">Fax 202.624.8973<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Bell MT","serif"">Cell 202.437.2254<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>