Posted on 07/27/2005 10:23:01 AM PDT by w6ai5q37b
Washington, DC – “Buy American” laws and similar state and federal legislation would be gutted by CAFTA procurement rules that prohibit all laws that give a preference to domestic or local businesses according to U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood, who says CAFTA Article 9 overturns every state and federal law that requires federal, state, and local government agencies to buy American products, or use American workforces. CAFTA Article 9.2.
No Party (Nation) may treat a locally established supplier any less favorably than another locally established supplier on the basis of degree of foreign affiliation or ownership, or …on the basis that goods or services …are goods or services of another Party (Nation).
“CAFTA would immediately overturn all the hard work of our state legislatures in trying to support local businesses and jobs,” says Norwood. “It would overrule all state and federal law on the issue, effectively destroying our sovereignty, and would block any action by the voters to correct this outrage.”
The Article would also prohibit laws that restrict or ban the outsourcing of jobs to CAFTA nations or firms registered to CAFTA nations. Under the protection of the article, a Central American firm with a satellite office in America could contract with an Indian telemarketing company to provide a low bid for federal or state government phone banks, such as IRS hotlines or state employment office services. All state and federal laws to the contrary would be void, and the CAFTA firm could sue if they failed to win the contract after submitting the low bid. The case would be heard by a CAFTA tribunal, consisting of two Central American judges pitted against one judge from the United States.
Norwood says Article 9 is just one more glaring example of CAFTA attempts to overthrow Americans’ ability to govern themselves. “At every turn, this bill seeks to wipe out American law, in favor of CAFTA and other world trade agreement rules. This Article makes it crystal clear that CAFTA is more than a trade agreement – it is a treaty, and should be rejected.”
In some cases, that's true, but not at that particular company. They had enough other work to keep the employees occupied. All that we were spinning off was an older product line.
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.