Central American Free Trade Agreement Bill

[Emsworth]

Central American Free Trade Agreement Bill

1. The Senate hereby approves the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement entered into on August 5, 2004 with the Governments of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions, and enforce such regulations, as may be necessary to implement the provisions of the Agreement.
3. This Act shall have effect only with respect to those countries which have ratified or approved the Agreement, and which continue to comply with its provisions.

Sponsor: The President pro tempore

[Emsworth]

I would like to thank the President pro tempore for graciously introducing this bill on my behalf. The agreement referred to in this act is the real-life CAFTA, negotiations for which were completed in 2004.

[Emsworth]

The agreement is quite long, but if anyone wants to peruse it, he may find it here. I will, however, summarize the most important points for the Senate's benefit:

The main provision in CAFTA is the permanent elimination or phase-out of tariff barriers between the United States and several Central American countries. A vast majority of Central American goods can already be imported into the United States tariff-free as a result of an Act of Congress passed in 2000. However, this act will expire in 2008. CAFTA makes the tariff eliminations and phase-outs permanent.

The second most-important provision is that CAFTA allows foreign investment in the public sector. American companies will be allowed to invest in government-run industries in Central America. Furthermore, foreign investment will be protected by honoring copyrights, trademarks, and patents.

[Emsworth]

I think signing free trade agreements with countries with unfair laws, wages, and questionable practices is not in the best interests of Atlasia, even if it does expand freedom for corporations.  Many proponents of CAFTA during the U.S. Senate debate said it would give us cheap labor.  If that means labor where the employees are paid miniscule amounts of money per day, that's not the sort of thing we should condone.

I would respectfully disagree. I don't think that it is the business of the Atlasian government to try to change labor practices in other countries. Rather, the chief concern of the government should be to expand freedom in our country. The policies of governments in other nations should not be allowed to restrict the liberty of the Atlasian People.

[Emsworth]

I see no reason to sign trade agreements with nations that have atrocious wage laws or don't prohibit, for example, child labor.  Let's look at a hypothetical example.  Would you support an FTA with a country that has no laws against child pornography?  I know I wouldn't.

Child labor and child pornography are violations of the rights of children. However, a low wage, voluntarily accepted by the worker, is not. It may be unfair, but it is not coercive, or violative of human rights like child pornography is.

I would also note: Atlasia itself has no minimum wage laws at all. Therefore, it strikes me as somewhat exceptional for us to restrict trade with another country on the basis of their wage laws.

[Emsworth]

A low wage is rarely voluntarily accepted by the worker.  If they dispute it, they'll just be ignored or lose their job.  It's not voluntary acceptance; they have to accept it.

It is indeed voluntary, insomuch as the government does not compel them to accept it. Their acceptance is predicated purely on their own wants and desires, not on the force of law or coercion by the government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I beg to disagree. I would argue that human rights are essentially liberties or freedoms--the right to own property, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and so forth--without restriction by the government. I think that human rights do not include positive "entitlements." There is, I think, no "right to work for a minimum wage." In fact, it is a minimum wage which is opposed to fundamental rights, because it prevents individuals from entering into contracts voluntarily and without governmental coercion.

[Emsworth]

I'm not stupid, Mr. Vice President.

I wouldn't dream of suggesting otherwise. But if I did, then I would apologize.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then I suppose we would have to agree to disagree about the purpose of government. My personal view is that the government should not go about coercing employers and employees by restraining the liberty of contract.

In any event, I should point out that CAFTA includes a provision requiring a country to enforce its labor laws (which is often not done in Central America, as you suggest, but the countries in question would face fines for failing to comply).

Violating one's right to own property or freedom of speech is a violation of civil liberties, not human rights.

I would not differentiate between the two, but it is only a matter of semantics.

[Emsworth]

Maybe I'd be convinced that this provision did anything if proponents of CAFTA were not advertising that it will give us "cheap labor."

Perhaps you have a valid point, but one must bear in mind that what is cheap for a U.S. company may not be a low wage for a Central American worker.

[Emsworth]

I think that any effect imports from Central America would have on the Atlasian economy is not significant. Firstly, 80% of Central American goods already enter Atlasia duty-free, as I said earlier. The percentage is even higher for agricultural products; almost all of them enter this country duty-free. Secondly, the remaining 20% of tariff barriers will not be eliminated immediately, but will rather be phased out over the next several years. Overall, CAFTA's effects in terms of imports to Atlasia are relatively minor.

Much more important to our economy will be the result for Atlasian exports. People in Central America will be able to afford Atlasian goods, and will therefore buy more of them. This will be an excellent boost to several Atlasian businesses, and will create more economic opportunity.

Moreover, for those of you, honorable Senators, who are concerned about labor rights in Central America, this agreement would increase the prosperity of the Central American nations by promoting trade, thereby ultimately helping those very workers you refer to.

I would say that our history demonstrates that protectionism often does not actually benefit Atlasia. The Tariff of Abominations passed in 1828 adversely affected the economy by greatly increasing costs while decreasing revenues for businesses. The Dingley Tariff of 1897 led to extremely high consumer prices. Even more disastrous was the Hawley-Smoot Tariff of 1930, which probably contributed to the collapse of international trade, and the beginning of the Great Depression. Closer to our own time, when President George W. Bush increased the steel tariff to save 5,000 jobs in the steel industry, he caused the loss of over 25,000 jobs in steel-consuming industries. I submit, honorable Senators, that protectionism generally does not benefit the economy.

Did not the Founding Fathers, the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, criticize King George III "For cutting off our Trade"? Is it not an eternal principle of justice that the government should not be partial to one sector of the community at the expense of all others? Is it not a betrayal of our most fundamental principles of fairness to constrict the channels of commerce, to immolate liberty on the altar of protectionism?

[Emsworth]

Is that something we can afford?

Absolutely not. The manufacturing industry is of vital importance both to Atlasia at large and to our struggling industrial communities.

As I noted before, the manufacturing industry will not be too greatly affected by this agreement. 80% of the tariff barriers in question have already been lifted; the remaining 20% (which relate to agricultural products like sugar, not manufacturing) will be phased out over the next 10 years. While any effect for manufacturing will be miniscule, or even nothing, the effect for our businesses will be excellent.

[Emsworth]

So this bill would only lift the approximately 20% of tariffs that remain, those covering agriculture only?  So it would be safe to say that Atlasia currently has no tariffs on manufactured goods?

I should be more precise. A vast majority of tariffs on Central American goods (including electronics, mechanical goods, and most other manufacturing items) have been eliminated by virtue of the Caribbean Basin Initiative of 2000. This initiative is temporary; CAFTA would make the change permanent.

The remaining 20% of tariff barriers are related to "sensitive" businesses, like the sugar industry. These will be phased out.

I wouldn't say that Atlasia has no tariffs on manufactured goods; rather, almost all such goods from Central Ameria already enter Atlasia duty free, as far as I know.

[Emsworth]

We have had more than 24 hours without debate. Therefore:

The question is on final passage of the bill. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

[Emsworth]

It would appear to me that Senator Al had a comment to make regarding the exemptions in the bill much less than 24 hours ago.

I thought that was just a question, not substantive debate. However, as it appears that the Senate's interpretation differs, I will postpone the vote.

[Emsworth]

Free trade should not need treaties.

I would be glad to get rid of tariff barriers. Unfortunately, other countries aren't so likely to do the same. Hence, treaties are realistically necessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is not so. No sovereignty is ceded; our policy remains entirely within our control.

[Emsworth]

The question is on invoking cloture. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

I would informally urge all Senators to vote in favor, as we have had plenty of opportunity for debate already.

[Emsworth]

With four Noes, there can be no two-thirds majority, and the motion fails.

[Emsworth]

I am not entirely certain that the South Carolina code has anything whatsoever to do with the implementation of CAFTA. Therefore, unless Sen. Ebowed wishes to explain its relevance, I will deem the dilatory amendment frivolous (not only does it have no relevance, but also no effect).

[Emsworth]

Firstly, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 4 stipulates that functionally impractical amendments shall be stricken by the presiding officer. The amendment is purely symbolic, and is accordingly not functional.

Secondly, is no constitutionally enumerated power to pass purely symbolic legislation. As long as this remains a bill, and not a simple resolution of the Senate alone, purely symbolic statements with no substance whatsoever are not, I believe, permitted. Therefore, the amendment is also unconstitutional.

Thirdly, and with respect to Sen. Ebowed, I would argue that an amendment to call something "a very important part of code," but that has no substantive affect whatsoever, is frivolous.

This agreement tramples upon the rights of local governments to make decisions about tariffs and trade...

Local government does not have the authority to make these decisions. The Constitution (Article I, Section 7, Clause 5) expressly forbids it.

On the whole, the Senator has the right to challenge my action. The concurrence of one-third of the Senate is required in override this procedural ruling.

[Emsworth]

§ 11 of Section 1 of Article I of the Atlasian COnstitution forbids the Senate to extend the time extent of patents.

Forgive me, Mr. Governor, but Section 1 of Article I does not appear to have a clause 11. If there is indeed such a clause in the Constitution, then I do apologize to the Senate, but the treaty would of course be null and unconstitutional.

[Emsworth]

Boo-hoo, I meant section 5.

Ah, I see.

Well, copyrights already extend to seventy years after the author's death, so Chapter 15 has no effect in that case. The other two clauses do not seem to have any implication with regard to extensions of time, but please correct me if I am wrong.

[Emsworth]

I wish to propose the following amendment:

Clauses 1, 2, and 3 shall be stricken and replaced with:
1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia, the Republic of Costa Rica, the Republic of El Salvador, the Republic of Guatemala, the Republic of Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.

Does anyone have suggestions on this amendment?

Is there any further debate on this amendment?

[Emsworth]

I wish to propose the following amendment:

Clauses 1, 2, and 3 shall be stricken and replaced with:
1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia, the Republic of Costa Rica, the Republic of El Salvador, the Republic of Guatemala, the Republic of Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.

Does anyone have suggestions on this amendment?

The question is on the amendment. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

[Emsworth]

With five Ayes and two abstentions, the amendment is passed.

[Emsworth]

Is it possible to remove "Agreement" from the bill title without holding a vote?

Indeed, as the bill has nothing to do with the agreement, the word is removed.

[Emsworth]

Central American Free Trade Bill

1. No tariffs, customs, or restrictions on movement of goods, except those that have been outlawed by the destination or interim nation, shall exist between the Republic of Atlasia, the Republic of Costa Rica, the Republic of El Salvador, the Republic of Guatemala, the Republic of Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.
2. The President and other officers of the Atlasian Government shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.

The question is on final passage. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.