A DOMESTIC ECONOMY FUELED BY SMALL AND REGIONAL BUSINESSES AND THE PUBLIC SECTOR WILL NOT ELIMINATE BIG CORPORATIONS---IT SIMPLY REMOVES THEM FROM POWER.
Private sector unions thinking this privatization of public sector and its unions brings more work for them are simply cannabalizing union strength for short-term jobs.
Below is an article that shows what TPP looks like. A global corporation is given control of huge public projects that then see constant adjustments to the original contracts and awards given that do not even make sense with huge profits from contracts awarded full of fraud and corruption. The citizens of Baltimore are watching as all of the government revenue goes to these deals with national and global corporations while all that corporate subsidy is replaced by ever higher taxes, fees, and fines on the citizens of BAltimore. THIS IS WHAT US DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS DO OVERSEAS IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD AND IT IS THE MODUS OPERANDUS OF OUR BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL AND MARYLAND ASSEMBLY. Who tells Baltimore City Hall and our Board of Estimates which corporations to hand these awards? Baltimore Development Corporation and Johns Hopkins.
As the sole bidder Spiniello will now probably take the city to court to claim this award. The question is---why was Spiniello the only bidder in Baltimore? The Baltimore Board of Estimates has systematically discouraged any reasonable contractor from bidding because the process is so corrupt.
You also notice that Spiniello is SMART METER as with VEOLA ENVIRONMENT ----the global corporate tag team for privatizing public water and waste and rationing of water and energy!
Mayor asked to reject water contract that’s 46% above estimate The sole bidder, Spiniello Companies, is seeking $21.6 million to repair and replace aging water meter vaults
Mark Reutter April 8, 2014 at 1:06 pm Story Link 0
A Spiniello truck was at work on water main-related construction on Buena Vista Avenue in Hampden today.
Photo by: Mark Reutter
UPDATE: The Board of Estimates voted this morning to reject the water contract, paving the way for a re-bidding of the work. No one from Spiniello Companies, the sole bidder, appeared to defend their price.
A city agency is urging the mayor and Board of Estimates to reject a contract to repair water meter infrastructure that is nearly 50% above the city’s estimate.
The request – contained in the board’s agenda for tomorrow’s meeting – represents a rare rebuke to Spiniello Companies, a New Jersey-based firm that dominates the emergency repair of Baltimore’s water mains.
Spiniello was the only company to bid on WC 1296, an “urgent needs” program to repair and replace deteriorating water meter vaults and valves across the city.
Typically, such a contract is bid by three to five companies. The sole bid by Spiniello raised eyebrows among City Hall observers when it was announced at the January 22 bid opening.
As Low as $10 Million
Board documents reviewed by The Brew disclose that Spiniello’s $21,613,300 price is 46% above the $14.8 million estimate by the city’s engineer. And the bid is double the city’s original estimate that the work could be done for as little as $10 million.
According to records reviewed by The Brew, the Bureau of Water and Waste Water “re-looked” at the engineer’s estimate after the Spiniello bid was opened and “adjusted the unit prices of those items that could have been underestimated” by the engineer.
Even with this upward revision of about $700,000, the agency still came up with a price that was $6 million less than the Spiniello bid.
Only one bid was received in January for the metering contract. (Board of Estimates bid sheet)
Spiniello has dominated the repair of broken water mains under a series of contracts and extra work orders approved by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and the Board of Estimates.
The company has won more than $50 million in city contracts since 2010, including $16.7 million to replace ARB (Automatic Reading and Billing) water meters that were blamed for thousands of mis-read and estimated residential water bills.
The Brew has reported that the company secured $19 million worth of EWOs (Extra Work Orders) repairing ruptured and leaking water mains in recent years, including major breaks under Dundalk Avenue and at Light and Redwood streets downtown.
Member of “Smart Meter” Team
Spiniello is part of the Itron team that won a high-stakes “smart” water meter contract last November, wresting the work from a group that included J.P. Grant, a major Rawlings-Blake campaign contributor who managed the 2012 and 2013 Grand Prix street race, and Dynis Inc., a small cell tower repair company that has since been sold.
The request by the Water Bureau to reject the Spiniello bid and readvertise the work is expected to be approved by the board.
Rawlings-Blake and other board members, including City Council President Bernard C. “Jack” Young, do not disclose their vote before the meeting.
Spiniello’s division manager, Todd Galletti, did not return a phone call seeking comment. The company’s main office has not answered an email asking why its bid was so much higher than the city’s estimate.
treason [tree-zuh n] noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. 3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. In the United States Of America, treason is defined at Article 3 of the Constitution.
The TPP, if Passed, Spells the End of Popular Sovereignty for The United States
Posted on November 10, 2013 by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente.
You’ve heard of popular sovereignty, right? It’s embodied in the Preamble of the United States Constitution. I’ll quote it for the sheer majesty of the language, archaic though it may seem in these “innovative” days:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
A popular website (“We Speak Student”) explains in its Constitution FAQ:
What is the principle of popular sovereignty?
The principle of popular sovereignty is the idea that a government’s power derives only from the consent of the people being governed. The Constitution’s first three words—”We the People…”—establish from the very start that the United States government draws its authority and legitimacy directly from the people. The concept of popular sovereignty differs from the old monarchical belief in the divine right of kings (in which the monarch was said to draw his right to rule directly from God) and also from the British principle of parliamentary sovereignty (in which ultimate authority rested with Parliament rather than with the people directly).
Making it all the more remarkable, or not, that our political class — Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch, a bipartisan caucus, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Editorial Board of The New York Times, to name a few of the usual suspects — would pursue an agreement, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) that sells out popular sovereignty to transnational investors, and allows them to rule us. I know your friends think this sounds like nutty black helicopter stuff, but it’s true! It’s true! (Tell them to watch Yves on Bill Moyers, in a really sharp transcript.) So bear with me, please, as I work through the thesis. First, I’ll look at how TPP replaces popular sovereignty with transnational investor rule, in two ways. Next, I’ll take a very quick look at the state of play. Finally, I’ll suggest that all is not lost, and in fact the TPP can be defeated.
First, TPP undermines popular sovereignty because it’s being written in secret. I’ll give a few quotes here, mostly to illustrate that the farther away you get from K Street, the more precise the language becomes. First, Campaign for America’s Future:
The next “trade” treaty will be the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This is a huge treaty with only a small part covering trade. Most of the agreement (according to leaks) sets down a new kind of regulatory structure [what does that mean?] for the giant corporations that would supersede the ability of any country to rein them in. The treaty is being negotiated in secret with only business interests “at the table.” Representatives of others with a stake in the outcome are not part of the process. Groups representing the interests of consumers, labor, human rights, the environment, democracy or even smaller and innovative companies that might want to compete with the giant multinationals are not part of the negotiations.
To bad about the verticals, not to mention the American people, or their elected representatives. CEPR:
Of course the TPP is not about free trade, in most cases the formal trade barriers between the countries negotiating the pact are relatively low. The main thrust of the negotiations is to impose a regulator[y] structure in a wide range of areas — health, safety, environmental — which will override national and sub-national rules. This has little to do with trade and in some cases, such as the increased patent protection for prescription drugs being pushed as part of the deal (which is noted in the article), will actually involve increased barriers to trade.
And now Expose the TPP, which makes “regulatory structure” just a wee bit more precise while, again, agreeing on the secrecy:
The Trans-Pacific Partnership n. 1. A “free trade” agreement that would set rules on non-trade matters such as food safety, internet freedom, medicine costs, financial regulation, and the environment. 2. A binding international governance system that would require the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and any other country that signs on to conform their domestic policies to its rules. 3. A secret trade negotiation that has included over 600 official corporate “trade advisors” while hiding the text from Members of Congress, governors, state legislators, the press, civil society, and the public.
Fortunately, and bringing me to the second and more important reason the TPP undermines popular sovereignty, the investment chapter for the TPP was leaked, and the excellent Public Citizen published it (link to the PDF). Their summary in relevant part describes the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions:
These provisions are so extreme that many people unfamiliar with them tend to dismiss description of them or their implications…
Procedural rights that are not available to domestic investors to sue governments outside of national court systems, unconstrained by the rights and obligations of countries’ constitutions, laws and domestic court procedures (Section B). There is simply no reason for foreign investors to pursue claims against a nation outside of that nation’s judicial system, unless it is in an attempt to obtain greater rights than those provided under national law. Moreover, many of the TPP partners have strong domestic legal systems . For example, TPP partners New Zealand, Australia and Singapore are all ranked by the World Bank as performing at least as well as the United States with regard to control of corruption and adherence to rule of law. Yet in a manner that would enrage right and left alike, the private “investor-state” enforcement system included in the leaked TPP text would empower foreign investors and corporations to skirt domestic courts and laws and sue governments in foreign tribunals. There, they can demand cash compensation from domestic treasuries over domestic policies that they claim undermine their new investor rights and expected future profits. This establishes an alarming two-track system of justice that privileges foreign corporations in myriad ways relative to governments or domestic businesses. It also exposes signatory countries to vast liabilities, as foreign firms use foreign tribunals to raid public treasuries.
So that explains the “new kind of” “regulatory structure,” the “binding international governance system” a lot better than I can. Because this new “governance system” is literally, and not metaphorically, revolutionary, I took a look at the actual text of the Investment Chapter, made some screen shots, and added some (really sloppy) yellow magic marker highlighting. I should say that I am by no stretch of the imagination a subject matter expert in the language of international trade treaties, though I do know a “shall” when I see it; my purpose in highlighting the text is simply to show passages that the cynical would characterize as “weasel wording,” or subject to “lawyerly parsing,” or containing, in the vulgate, “loopholes that you could drive a truck through.” Also, you may wish to contrast the majesty of the language of the U.S. Constitution with the fluorescent-lit, Orwellian bureaucratese of the Investment Chapter. Also too, you’ve really got to read this stuff to believe it. So herewith, all from Section 12 and following:
The goal: Equal treatment for investment capital, globally. Does anybody think that’s going to be a race to the top for anybody but the global investor class?
Note that the expectation of profit is one of the characteristics of an investment. And what better judge of those expectations could there be than the investor?
Can “expropriation” include state actions that damage an investors expectation of profit? You betcha! Here’s how that “direct or indirect” wording gets teased out:
Get a load of those loopholes! “Intangible property rights” and “indirect expropriation” are to be determined on a “case-by-case, fact-based inquiry” as to whether “distinct” (sez who) and “reasonable” (sez who) “expectations” (sea who) were “interfered with.” But don’t worry, little governments! Only in “rare circumstances” will your “legitimate” (sez who) “public welfare objectives” be considered expropriations. And never mind that one “rare circumstance,” if the “expectations” were large enough — say, the expectations of the health insurance companies that ObamaCare would never be repealed? — could sink a sovereign state entirely.
I really like the part where the writ of your government runs “where applicable.”
So the proceedings of the tribunal are “open,” unless one of the parties decides it should be closed.
This is the part where, after its open except when randomly closed hearing, the tribunal can order your government to pay an investor for damages to their investment which may, as we saw in the definition of investment, include expectations of a return. (And just in case you think it can’t happen here, here’s one example, and here’s another of the same sort of tribunal, though not yet the TPP.)
Second, and briefly, the state of play. Via AEI:
[T]he potential impact of the president’s no-show at TPP negotiations [a positive result of the government shutdown] is a likewise negative development but not necessarily a fatal one to the successful conclusion of the agreement. With or without Obama’s presence, the situation with regards to the negotiations stands as follows. Since 2010, when serious bargaining began, there have been 19 negotiating sessions. At this point, most if not all of the technical underbrush has been cleared away by the trade bureaucrats from the 12 member states. What is left is a group of at least a dozen highly sensitive political questions and judgments that must be settled by political leaders. Among the issues outstanding are rules and commitments related to state-owned enterprises (SOEs), the environment, labor, market access and rules of origin, intellectual property (IP), government procurement, services and investment, regulatory coherence and coordination, and data flows and protection, among others. (The list will vary from observer to observer and cannot be conclusive since no actual potential text has been made public).
No potential for conflict there! But to get the TPP passed, Obama needs “fast track” trade promotion authority (TPA) that he doesn’t have. Can he get it? Politico:
As the administration is trying to wrap up talks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership by the end of the year, “they have handicapped themselves by not having trade promotion authority,” said a former U.S. trade official who asked not to be identified. “You cannot strike the right balance of ambition in the agreement [whatever that means] if you have one hand tied behind your back.”
Leaders of the 12 TPP countries wound up announcing the goal of finishing the talks by the end of the year, but some think if Obama had been there, they would have declared the deal virtually complete, creating the impetus for key committees in Congress to take up the trade promotion authority bill. Instead, it waits in the wings, assembly required, with no agreement yet on how to put it together.
Good. Let’s hope it rots there.
Finally, all is not lost, for at least four reasons:
1.) Obama is a lame duck. A guy who can’t launch a website for his signature domestic initiative shouldn’t be let anywhere near an international agreement that creates a “binding international governance system.” Yikes! Bad idea!
2.) Fast track is on the rocks because of yet another “strange bedfellows” alliance. FT:
The Obama administration’s efforts to secure “fast track” authority deemed vital to seal trade deals with Europe and Asia have run into resistance from “an unholy alliance” of Democrats and conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill.
3.) Lots of resistance back in the district. Here’s a handy map that states and localities can look at if they want to see who can sue them; and here’s a letter state legislators wrote.
4.) Other democracies don’t like the TPP any better than we do. Here’s one view from Japan.
So get it together, talk it up, write that letter to the editor, and do whatever else you can! The Constitution we’ve got will do ’til another one comes along, and the TPP isn’t that. Did you vote for this, or anything remotely like it?
Below you see a list of state legislators that at least speak out against the investor-state section of TPP----notice the number from Vermont----home of Bernie Sanders and then notice the number from Maryland home of global corporate rule! This letter was written in 2012 when little of the contents of TPP was leaked and made public----since then we see it is far worse. If you notice it is the Tea Party most against what they know is an attack on our US Constitution. The Tea Party is no friend of labor and justice but they are fighting the fight against global corporate rule as labor and justice should be. (It takes too long to format this----)
WHY ARE YOU NOT HEARING ABOUT THIS CONSTANTLY FROM YOUR LABOR AND JUSTICE LEADERSHIP----FROM YOUR POLS AND PUNDITS? THAT IS HOW YOU KNOW THESE ENTITIES ARE NOT WORKING FOR YOU AND ME.
AN OPEN LETTER FROM U.S. STATE LEGISLATORS TO NEGOTIATORS OF THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP
URGING THE REJECTION OF INVESTOR
STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
As elected members of our state legislatures from throughout the United States, we value international
trade when fair rules are in place, and encourage our states to actively participate in the global economy
in furtherance of economic prosperity.
Modern trade agreements have impacts that extend significantly beyond the bounds of traditional trade
, such as tariffs and quotas, and can undermine the role of the states in protecting the public health,
safety and welfare through our system of federalism, as established in the U.S. Constitution. Trade rules
can limit state sovereignty and our authority
as legislators to regulate to ensure a level playing field for
workers and businesses or to include meaningful human rights, labor and environmental standards.
The lack of transparency of the treaty negotiation process, and the failure of negotiators to
consult with states on the far
reaching impact of trade agreements on state and local laws, even when
binding on our states, is of grave concern to us.
We have a particular concern about the impact on state regulatory, legal, and judicial aut
hority if the
State dispute arbitration provisions are adopted as part of the Trans
Pacific Partnership (TPP)
agreement. The TPP, which is currently under negotiation among nine Pacific Rim nations including the
and may be expanded to inclu
de NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico plus Japan
treaty that will likely have significant implications for the states.
state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses allow foreign investors the right to sue governments
directly in off
shore private investment tribunals, bypassing the courts and also allowing a "second bite" if
the investors do not like the results of domestic court decisions. Although the investor
state tribunal has
no power to nullify U.S. federal, state, and local law
s, in practice, when a country loses to an investor, it
will change the offending law, or pay damages, or both. Moreover, a country need not even lose a case
the chilling effect to impact its future policy making deliberations.
While these powers are
not new, the TPP negotiation comes amidst mounting criticism of the rapid rise in
State claims, as foreign corporations use these powers to challenge core public policy decisions.
In particular, there is increasing concern about the way that inve
state disputes in bilateral investment
treaties and free trade agreements are being used to challenge domestic legal processes, including
processes and decisions of national courts. Recent examples include challenges to mining regulations and
labeling laws, including a challenge to a state jury determination under the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Increasingly decisions issued under this system result in foreign investors being granted greater rights
than are provided to domest
ic firms and investors under the Constitutions, laws and court systems of host
countries. In several instances, arbitral tribunals have gone beyond awards of cash damages and issued
injunctive relief that creates severe conflicts of law. For instance, a re
cent order by a tribunal in the case
brought by Chevron against Ecuador under a U.S.
Ecuador bilateral investment treaty ordered the
executive branch of that country to suspend the enforcement of an appellate court ruling, violating its
ration of powers.
State legislators in the U.S. have adopted a clear position opposing Investor
State dispute settlement
clauses in trade agreements. The National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), which represents all
50 states and the District of
Columbia, has adopted the following policy with respect to ISDS
NCSL will not support Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) or Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with
investment chapters that provide greater substantive or procedural rights to foreign companie
s than U.S.
companies enjoy under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, NCSL will not support any BIT or FTA that
provides for investor/state dispute resolution. NCSL firmly believes that when a state adopts a
law or regulation intended to
serve a public purpose, it shall not constitute a violation
an investment agreement or treaty, even if the change in the legal environment thwarts the foreign
investors’ previous expectations.
NCSL believes that BIT and FTA implementing legislation m
ust include provisions that deny any private
action in U.S. courts or before international dispute resolution panels to enforce international trade or
investment agreements. Implementing legislation must also include provisions stating that neither the
isions of international dispute resolution panels nor international trade and investment agreements
themselves are binding on the states as a matter of U.S. la
We strongly endorse this position, and urge the U.S Trade Representative to remove any
dispute settlement clause from further consideration for inclusion in the TPP.
We are encouraged that the Government of Australia has said it is unwilling to submit to Investor
dispute settlement powers under a TPP and other future
trade agreements, and we urge the TPP
negotiators to exclude the Investor
State system for all countries participating in the TPP, not just
Five years ago, the South Korea Supreme Court wrote a briefing paper on the implications of ISDS on its
judicial system, during negotiations for the Korea
U.S. free trade agreement. Because these trade
negotiations were conducted in secret, the Court’s document, and the fact that it cautioned that the ISDS
could cause "extreme legal chaos," has just come to
light. The Korean government now seeks to
renegotiate this key treaty provision
ratification and signing of the KORUS free trade agreement by
We have an opportunity to prevent a repeat of the problems ISDS has created in NAFTA, KORUS
other trade agreements if U.S negotiators act now to exclude this provision from the TPP. The ISDS has
proven to be extremely problematic, undermining legislative, administrative, and judicial decisions, and
threatening the system of federalism establ
ished in the U.S. Constitution. It interferes with our capacity
and responsibility as state legislators to enact and enforce fair, nondiscriminatory rules that protect the
public health, safety and welfare, assure worker health and safety, and protect the
environment. It should
have no place in the Trans
Thank you for your consideration.
Representative Sharon Treat, Maine; Ranking Member, Insurance
& Financial Services Committee
Maralyn Chase, Washington
; Vice Chair, Economic Development & Trade Committee
Representative Richard Laird, Alabama
Representative David Guttenberg, Alaska
Representative Lela Alston, Arizona
Representative Kathy Webb, Arkansas
Representative Jim Nickels, Arkansas
a Ma, California
Representative John Kefalas, Colorado; Ranking Member, Health &
Representative Kevin Ryan, Connecticut; Deputy Speaker
Representative Zeke Zalaski, Connecticut; Co
Chair, Labor and Public Employees Committee
Ritter, Connecticut; Co
Chair, Public Health Committee
Representative John Kowalko, Deleware
Representative Geraldine F. Thompson, Florida
Representative Betty Reed, Florida
Virgil Fludd, Georgia
Pat Gardner, Georgia
Della Au Belatti, Hawaii
Wendy Jaquet, Idaho
; Former Minority Leader
esentative Constance A. Howard, Illinois; Chair, Judiciary II
Matt Pierce, Indi
Chuck Isenhart, Iowa; Ranking Member, Environmental Protection Committee
John Wittneben, Iowa
Senator Joe Bolkcom, Iowa; Assistant Leader
Sydney Carlin, Kansas; Ranking Member, Budget Committee
Joni Jenkins, Kentucky
Patricia Haynes Smith, Louisiana; C
hair, Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus
Diane Russell, Maine
Mark Bryant, Maine
Terry Hayes, Maine; Assistant Democratic Leader
Representative Peggy Rotundo, Maine; Ranking Member, Appropriations Committee
Ann E. Peoples, Maine
Chuck Kruger, Maine
Anna D. Blodgett, Maine
Ed Mazurek, Maine
Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Maine
Melissa Walsh Innes, Maine
Walter Kumiega, Maine
Sheryl Briggs, Maine
Denise Harlow, Maine
Jon Hinck, Maine; Committee Minority Lead
Peter Stuckey, Maine
Mark Bryant, Maine
Tom Hucker, Maryland; Co
Chair, Joint Committee on Federal Relations
Karen S. M
Delegate Carolyn J.B. Howard, Maryland; Deputy Speaker Pro Tem
Denise Provost, Massachusetts
Ellen Cogen Lipton, Michi
Senator D. Scott Dibble, Minnesota; DFL Lead, Transportation Committee
Carlos Mariani, Minnesota
Linda Slocum, Minnesota
Tina Liebling, Minnesota
Mindy Greiling, Minnesota
Rick Hansen, Minnesota; Assistant Minority Leader
Senator Deborah J. Dawkins, Miss
Chair, Committee on Environmental Protection
Jeanette Mott Oxford, Missouri
Senator Ron Erickson, Montana
Senator Russ Karpisek, Nebraska; Chair, General Affairs Committee
Assemblywoman Maggie Carlton, Nevada; Chair, Natural Resources Committee;
Former Chair, Commerce & Labor Committee
Charles Townsend, New Hampshire
Assemblyman Herb Conaway, M.D., New Jersey
Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino, New Mexico
Senator Dede Feldman, New Mexico; Chair, Health & Human Services Committee
Gail Chasey, New Mexico; C
hair, House Con
umer and Public Affairs Committee
Eleanor Chavez, New Mexico; Vice
Chair, Labor and Human Resources Committee
Assemblyman Richard N. Gottfried, New York; Chair, Health Committee
Pricey Harrison, North Carolina
Verla Insko, North Carolina
ce Bordsen, North Carolina
Lonny B. Winrich, North Dakota
Senator Tim Mathern, North Dakota
Mike Foley, Ohio
Senator Michael J. Skindell, Ohio
Eric Proctor, Oklahoma
Phil Barnhart, Oregon; Assistant Democratic Leader
Brad Witt, Oregon; Chair, Veterans Commit
Michael E. Dembrow, Oregon
Senator Chip Shields, Oregon
Michael Carroll, Pennsylvania
Senator Luz Arce, Puerto Rico; Majority Whip
Art Handy, Rhode Island
Joseph H. Neal, South Carolina
Frank Kloucek, South Dakota
Mike Kernell, Tennessee; Senior Member,
Lon Burnam, Texas
Roberto R. Alonzo, Texas
Veronica Gonzales, Texas; Chair, Border & Intergovernmental Affairs Committee
Senator Karen Morgan, Utah; Minority Whip
Kathleen Keenan, Vermont
Bill Botzow, Vermont; Chair, Commerce and Econo
mic Development Committee
Helen Head, Vermont; Chair, General, Housing & Military Affairs Committee
Suzi Wizowaty, Vermont; Clerk, Judiciary Committee
Kate Webb, Vermont
Patsy French, Vermont
Johannah Donovan, Vermont; Chair, Education Committee
elle, Vermont; Committee Clerk
Jim Masland, Vermont
Warren F. Kitzmiller, Vermont
Mitzi Johnson, Vermont; Vice
Chair, Appropriations Committee
Michael Yantachka, Vermont
David Deen, Vermont; Chair, Fish, Wildlife and Water Reso
Member, House Rules Committee
Bill Lippert, Vermont; Chair, House Judiciary Committee
Teo Zagar, Vermont
Chip Conquest, Vermont
Herb Russell, Vermont
Senator Sally Fox, Vermont; Assistant Whip
Joan Lenes, Vermont
Kristy Spengeler, Vermont
Delegate Kaye Kory, Virginia
Senator Jeanne Kohl
Welles, Washington; Chair, Senator Labor, Commerce & Consumer Protection
Chris Reykdal, Washington; Vice Chair, Labor and Workforce Development Committee
Derek Stanford, Washington
or Christine Rolfes, Washington
Mike Sells, Washington; Chair, Labor and Workforce Development Committee
Bob Hasegawa, Washington
Senator Kevin Ranker, Washington; Majority Assistant Whip
Sherry Appleton, Washington; Chair, Working Families Caucus
am Kline, Washington; Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee
Senator Karen Keiser, Washington; Chair, Health Care Committee
Senator Steve Conway, Washington
Delegate Don C. Perdue, West Virginia; Chair, House Health &
Mark Pocan, Wisconsi
Stan Blake, Wyoming
Dated: July 5, 2012