CAFTA PUTS U.S. SOVEREIGNTY AND CONSTITUTION UNDER ATTACK

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I join the three previous speakers tonight, and I rise today in the urgent interest of America's sovereignty and the primacy of our laws and the Constitution. They are under attack, Mr. Speaker, by the Central American Free Trade Agreement that will soon be considered by this Chamber.

In fact, even referring to CAFTA as a ``trade agreement'' is a misnomer. Yes, it involves trade; but its influence on our economy, our legal system, and our way of life would be much more serious and sweeping than the benign term ``trade agreement'' suggests.

At its core, CAFTA is a document that uses more than 1,000 pages of the international vernacular of diplomacy to cede the right of the American people to be governed by their representatives that they elect according to the laws of their land and under the legal system established by their Constitution.

Specifically, CAFTA brazenly requires the executive branch of the United States Government, as well as this Congress, our State Governors, State legislators, and even local authorities to conform all existing and future Federal, State, and local laws to a new set of international statutes and standards that go beyond trade matters. Make no mistake: only one thing would be worse than approving and living under CAFTA , and that would be to approve it and then find ourselves unwilling to comply with its provisions, which demonstrably contravene every principle of Federalism that is at the basis of our form of government.

Such exercises of sovereign authority on the part of the United States Government on behalf of the American people we are entrusted to represent could subject our policies, our laws, our court judgments, and even our land to the will of an international tribunal empowered to impose the trade sanctions for our intransigence.

This is not a matter of opinion, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of fact. Precedents established by judgments rendered under NAFTA-related cases leave no room for doubt that CAFTA will open us to all forms of statutory globalization that is singularly not in the best interests of the United States.

Let me be more blunt. Requiring U.S. domestic laws to conform to the extensive nontrade provisions in CAFTA is a direct violation of the Constitution as well as an abuse of trust placed in this government by the people of the United States. This is an intrusion upon the sovereign rights of the duly elected representatives in Federal, State, and local positions. But more importantly, it is nothing short of an abdication of the rights of those who elected us.

Let us look at some specifics. Under CAFTA , a tribunal empowered to resolve a dispute would be made up of judges from three countries; two countries, one each, representing those in the dispute, as well as a judge from a third country from the CAFTA trade agreement. Now, no matter how you do the math, it adds up to one voice for the United States against two judges from Central American countries without the tradition of constitutional jurisprudence or democracy of which we are justifiably proud. Those odds simply are unacceptable.

Beyond the CAFTA tribunal, this agreement would submit the United States to an even greater degree of unreasonable and unwarranted offshore jurisdictional control in the guise of the United Nations and the World Bank. CAFTA would empower them to order payments of U.S. tax dollars to foreign investors who claim that the U.S. business laws and regulations are too strict by international standards. Neither our Constitution nor our courts have ever legitimately contemplated such a circumstance and to do so now would be, once again, entirely unacceptable.

U.S. businesses already must marshal all the ingenuity and technological advantages that they can to compete in the global marketplace. In addition, they are subject to severe and growing regulatory burdens placed on them by our own country's laws. Under CAFTA , they will find themselves at even greater disadvantage to foreign investors. The United States will only be a good place to do business if you are not from the United States. Our own businesses and entrepreneurs, our economic warriors will be stripped of their weaponry and sent to fight in a losing battle without protection.

These prospects terrify me. And, yet, we have heard talk lately from some who do not find any of this to be a matter of concern. They say that CAFTA's implementing language would do nothing to change current U.S. law. To believe that you would have to be looking at CAFTA with blinders on, unable or unwilling to see beyond today and into the potential effects years down the road. While today's laws may be safe, all future laws intended to protect America and their interests are indeed in jeopardy.

All this might sound a bit farfetched and overly dramatic. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of times when they have been forced to change our laws and our ways of doing business after submitting to the authority of an international court.

For example, under NAFTA, a tribunal similar to the one proposed in CAFTA ordered the United States to allow Mexican trucks to operate throughout the United States because NAFTA included the right of foreign transportation firms to operate in our country. We in Congress have regularly expressed our concern about the considerable safety problems associated with Mexican trucks that do not meet the U.S. safety requirements.

In addition, just last year Congress had to pass legislation repealing U.S. tax laws because the World Trade Organization decided that they were not in accordance with international policy. Changes to our tax policy should be based on our own laws and our own practices, not forced upon us by the whims and biases of international tribunals.

I am a strong believer in free and fair trade, and I believe that developing good trade policies will benefit U.S. farmers and manufacturers. But I cannot support new trade agreements if we do not maintain an effort to enforce existing agreements. Ineffective, uneven enforcement of NAFTA has led to existing tensions between the United States and the Canadian beef, potato and softwood lumber industries, as well as the Mexican bean and sugar beet industries, significantly affecting producers in my State. While we refuse to take other countries to task over their exploitations of NAFTA, we allow our own sovereignty to be continually assaulted by the NAFTA tribunal.

Having worked as an Idaho businessman for most of my life, I know that exporters in my State can compete and win on a level playing field; however, NAFTA has become a double-edged sword being used to undermine and ultimately destroy industry and jobs in my State. Rather than fixing old problems, CAFTA merely adds insult to injury by continuing this downward spiral toward a complete loss of U.S. sovereignty.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just would say that once again, there are many numerous opportunities for us to take a look at how we have been disadvantaged under NAFTA; and CAFTA , as has been said before, is just an ugly relative of NAFTA.

Union wages being "uncompetitive with other countries" is a polite way of saying "We can make a S#@T-load more by shifting the manufacturing base somewhere else instead of correcting the problem at home.

I didn't try and make a value judgment, just a statement of fact. There are lots of things that the government can do to "protect" the wages, but wage earners are also consumers.

Do you really believe that the sweatshops would cease to exist if union workers were paid less? Would illegal aliens stop being hired if Americans volunteered to do their work?

Again, making me sound like Simon Legree doesn't eliminate the issue. You pose two unrelated questions. The first one begs for countries to do something not in their national interest (from their perspective). Equalizing wages in some fashion is the issue, and from the tone of your post, not one that the US should contribute to. As for the second issue, whether we like it or not, illegals are doing work others won't. I'm not sure how to resolve the issue other than close the borders and see what happens. Again, the consumer will ultimately feel the pain, and consumers aren't unionized, so they don't count.

BTW it's interesting that as the Chinese become further empowered by our trade policy they may just use the power the West has endowed them with to someday kill American soldiers, as they have done in the past. How can we empower a nation that has recently threatened us with nuclear attack?

I don't know. I'm not an apologist for our trade policies, nor for MFN with China. But I assume that this government does not want to lose out to the EU and other trading blocks. In short, our economy demands such trade.

"Giving up our soveereignty to other powers" should be reworded as " slowly giving up our concept of nationhood to one world government."

Yes, I agree. But from an economic perspective, we are becoming one global marketplace whether we like it or not. How long before the political distinctions are lost is anyone's guess. But yes, it will happen.

But yes, in fact from a wage perspective, we are pricing ourselves out of the world marketplace.

I would say from a cost perspective rather than a wage perspective. As you know, wages are just a part of total costs of goods.

I submit that union work rules cost us more than union wages; that the threat and costs of lawsuits affect our manufactrurers, distributors, and resellers quite a bit increasing their costs, as well as the loss of risk taking and entreprenuership which give us new, cheaper products; that unnecessary regulations are a big impediment to our economic competitiveness; that high and misapplied taxes are a detriment to business; government subsidies distort the market and raise costs, tariffs on imports to protect special interests like coffe and sugar distort the market and trade; government involvement in hiring and firing practices distort business decisions; the costs of health care and other benefits are greatly increased by government polocies; and on and on.

Wages are the least of these concerns in our business costs and competitiveness.

Thanks. Yes. Interesting to finally hear from the Republican Wing of the Republican Party. 'Bout time. And we just learned today that Minnesota's First District Congressman, Gil Gutnecht (R-MN CD1) has decided he's against CAFTA after all he has heard. Had enough of the slippery slope of losing our sovereignty...and abdicating Congressional authority and U.S. jurisdiction. The global provisions in CAFTA that 'umbrella' outwards to suck in all other trade agreement disputants, WTO, NAFTA, etc. are scaring any real conservative that looks at them.

The next guys here who likely will have to do a 180 are Mark Kennedy and John Kline. They are generally solid conservatives, but may have gotten roped into agreeing to really bad promises to the White House to support this turkey.

Time to put the Constitution before politics. If that burns bridges, so be it. The Base will remember...and defend any real patriots. And they will also remember who sold them out for political candy...

Disagree. Yes, there are many costs that go into a manufactured package, but by far the costs of salaries and wages together with the associated life, health and retirement packages make up the lion's share of costs. And with unions, the costs of health care and other benefits are greatly increased by the bargaining process, not governmental policies. Generally, the only place the government gets involved there is social security, 1/2 of which comes out of wages, and the funding for retirement plans. The government now requires that pension plans are actually funded rather than the creation of a debt note in the financials.

Lawsuits are problematic, but unless you are big tobacco, nothing like wages. Take a look at any annual report and look at the cost of sales, most of which is cost of goods manufactured. It can range from 1/2 to 80 percent of sales.

Again, I don't really care one way or the other, nor am I making value judgements about unions. They exist, and they drive up costs significantly. This includes union workrules which I consider part of salaries and wages.

You say you disagree but then you lump the cost of bennies, SS, and work rules with wages to get a total hourly burden. That is what I was saying, wages are just a small part of costs. There are many hidden costs that don't fit under "labor" on a spreadsheet.

Just a few small examples of hidden costs that come to mind are the outlawing of DDT and asbestos. Each of those are unnecessary government actions which increase the costs of American goods. Each requires that more expensive and less effective products be used in their stead. That raises the cost of goods sold.

With asbestos, sometime inert and harmless asbestos that is already in place in older buildings must be taken out and replaced. That costs money and the money must be recouped either in taxes or the price of goods.

The costly and time consuming process of getting new drugs and medical devices through to FDA approval raises the cost of medical care. That raises medical cost and must be recovered somewhere.

Medical care started rising sharply after approval of Medicare in 1965 and soon insurance rates started climbing to cover them. That raises the costs of employer provided health coverage and must be recovered in the costs of goods and services.

The Americans with Disabilities Act required costly and unnecessary modifications to parking places, entrance ramps, doorways, restrooms, and the workspace, even for companies who had no disabled workers nor customers or clients who entered the building. That cost has to be recovered in the cost of goods and services.

Many companies face frequent lawsuits that have no merit and pay settlements to avoid the lengthy and costly litigation. Those suits range from product liability, slipping in the parking lot, employee discrimination, employee disability, as well as product liability. That is not just with the "monsters" like big tobacco, it is with every kind of company.

Ask Jesse Jackson. He makes millions a year in just threatening discrimination suits. A company that is sued can be required to turn over almost every piece of paper ever produced internally just to comply with the plaintiffs discovery process. That is how Jackson hit Texaco for a big jackpot. Some employee had written a memo to another that had a hint of racial overtone and the whole company was branded as a result, saying it was corporate culture.

Another area is the government regulations dealing with employees, what an employer can and cannot do. That plus the threat of lawsuits gives rise to corporate policies that are counter productive and injurious to productivity. Employees are uncomfortable not knowing what they can say and do with each other. Many exploit that. Regardless, it is not condusive to high productivity.

Along that line there is another aspect of unions that kill our industries. Not only do the unions control the hiring and firing process, they have basically eliminated the firing process, they also say who can and cannot be promoted. The employer cannot choose the best person for a job, he must take the one with the most union seniority. That is not competitive.

Those are just a few of the things that increase our costs of providing goods and services but not nearly all.

I rest my case for awhile but I am willing to go on.Oh yes, some employees spend the bulk of their workday on FreeRepublic rather than working. That harms our productivity. :-)

Yes, the total wage package is what one must look to. But that is a union dictated package and that is the largest piece of the pie by far. They have created a nice standard of living for their members but have pretty much priced themselves out of the world market.

As for the other items, I can't disagree. It all adds up in the long run, some more than others depending on the industry. Not surprisingly, Europe has many of the same government rules and unfunded mandates. But with the substantial cost of labor packages in the US, it's not surprising to find companies relocating their services and even manufacturing to much less costly areas.

I rest my case for awhile but I am willing to go on.Oh yes, some employees spend the bulk of their workday on FreeRepublic rather than working. That harms our productivity. :-)

Yes, I've heard some stats showing as high as 40% internet use during business hours. But I'm sure the unions would not permit that from their members...Take care.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.