Atlasian Worker Defense Act

[Bono]

§ 1 The North American Free Trade Agreement is hereby repealed.

§ 2 All of the North American Free Trade Agreement's regulations upon production and sales of goods and services, inspections, patents, or any others, and the side agreements inherant to it, are hereby repealed.

§ 3 Goods and services entering the territory of Atlasia, provenient from the other signataries of the North American Free Trade Agreement shall be given the same treatment for effects of inspections, duties and tariffs as goods and services from other countries, with regard to the International Conventions Atlasia has signed about it.

§ 4 The Secretary of State shall be given a mandate to negotiate a trade agreement with Canada, concerning metalic and non-metalic minerals and agrucultural goods.

§ 5 This bill and the ammendments to this bill shall become effective six months after its passage, with the exception of § 5, which shall be effective immediately.

[Gabu]

Does this mean that we're also going to be pulling out of talks over the Free Trade Area of the Americas?

At any rate, it may not be in Atlasia's short-term economic benefit to do this, in fact.  If anyone has benefitted (at least economically in the short term) from NAFTA, it's apparently Atlasia.  Having read into the effects of NAFTA, however, I'm tempted to vote in favor of this for a completely different reason than this bill's title implies: NAFTA isn't fair to everyone else.  From what I've read, it seems to be the case that while we're asking for penalties on other nations for breaking the terms of NAFTA, we're turning a blind eye to our own infractions, even when we're told to stop doing whatever it is we're doing.  In addition to that, our farmers' being subsidized, for example, is making our prices much lower than they should be, but under the terms of NAFTA, all signatories are required to sell our products at market value whether they want to or not, making domestic competition in those countries extremely difficult.

I want what's best for Atlasia, of course, but I feel that what we're currently doing is not what's best for Atlasia in the long run.  A competitive international market filled with mutual respect and consideration is essential for effective diplomacy and cooperation between nations, and, as far as I can tell, we could be doing more towards that end.

In examining other articles, there are other reasons to oppose NAFTA, as well.  I really don't like parts of its one-size-fits-all regulation policies, such as the requirement of limits on the safety and inspection of meat sold in grocery stores, new patent rules that apparently have raised medicine prices, and constraints on the government's ability to zone against sprawl or toxic industries, even if it feels that that's the best option.

I probably will support this.

[Bono]

Does this mean that we're also going to be pulling out of talks over the Free Trade Area of the Americas?

Well, I don't think we can stop the executive from engaging in whatever negotiations it wants, but I think by passing this we are giving them an inequivocal message.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The question that must be asked about NAFTA is a simple one; who's benifited from it?

Have the hardworking folks of my district benifited? The miles of rusting steelworks, ruined and burned out factories and dying coal towns in my district speak for themselves.
Have ordinary Mexicans benifited? No... of course not. Mexico still has an appalling poverty problem, wages are low, labor laws are lax, working conditions are poor and it is becoming economically dependent on Atlasia to a worrying extent.
So who has benifited? I speak for my constituents when I say the answer is obvious... Yet again the only people to benifit in a meaningful way are out of touch Corperate Fat Cat's. Why should our trade policy be dependent on the whims of a tiny minority, most of which belong behind bars anyway?

NAFTA is bad for Atlasia, bad for Mexico and, as Senator Gabu points out, even bad for "Free Trade"... and I support it's repeal.

[PBrunsel]

This will meet a Veto from me for sure.

[12th Doctor]

The question that must be asked about NAFTA is a simple one; who's benifited from it?

Have the hardworking folks of my district benifited? The miles of rusting steelworks, ruined and burned out factories and dying coal towns in my district speak for themselves.
Have ordinary Mexicans benifited? No... of course not. Mexico still has an appalling poverty problem, wages are low, labor laws are lax, working conditions are poor and it is becoming economically dependent on Atlasia to a worrying extent.
So who has benifited? I speak for my constituents when I say the answer is obvious... Yet again the only people to benifit in a meaningful way are out of touch Corperate Fat Cat's. Why should our trade policy be dependent on the whims of a tiny minority, most of which belong behind bars anyway?

NAFTA is bad for Atlasia, bad for Mexico and, as Senator Gabu points out, even bad for "Free Trade"... and I support it's repeal.

Senator, that has nothing to do with NAFTA and you should know it.  While I admit to being touched by your appeal and I feel a great deal of your pain on this issue... I must say that ending Free Trade with Japan or the EU would go further to bringing the steel factories back.

It is however, my opinion that free trade between free nations is beneficial for all peoples of the world as nations that come to rely on each other economically come to rely on each other in other ways and thus, cooperation is born.  To cut ourselves off from the trade of others is a large step towards cutting ourselves off from the world.

While I agree that we should look to further review of those portions of the Agreement involving Mexico to figure out how we can bring a great benefit there, the benefits of this agreement in Atlasia have been long felt by her people.

The fact is that most manufacturing jobs in this country are not going to Mexico or China, they are going to machines work in a manner efficient enough to drive down the prices of good so that more Atlasians can afford them.

My fellow Senators, we call this "progress" and in order for our country to keep progressing, as it always has, we must stop thinking about how we can take it back into the past.

During the campaign, I pledged to help mining communities and old base manufacturing towns, and I intend to keep that pledge, as I support renewing these areas so that they can escape old patterns.

I have asked Senator Al to help me in these efforts, and I hope that he will responde soon.  I, however, mst move against him on this issue.  I do not support this bill, my fellow Senators, and I ask all of you to make serious judgements about the future of our nation and the world when considering this peice of legislation.

I yield back the floor.

[Bono]

This will meet a Veto from me for sure.

But my, the competitive contracting and unionization act, that's good stuff-

[Bono]

The question that must be asked about NAFTA is a simple one; who's benifited from it?

Have the hardworking folks of my district benifited? The miles of rusting steelworks, ruined and burned out factories and dying coal towns in my district speak for themselves.
Have ordinary Mexicans benifited? No... of course not. Mexico still has an appalling poverty problem, wages are low, labor laws are lax, working conditions are poor and it is becoming economically dependent on Atlasia to a worrying extent.
So who has benifited? I speak for my constituents when I say the answer is obvious... Yet again the only people to benifit in a meaningful way are out of touch Corperate Fat Cat's. Why should our trade policy be dependent on the whims of a tiny minority, most of which belong behind bars anyway?

NAFTA is bad for Atlasia, bad for Mexico and, as Senator Gabu points out, even bad for "Free Trade"... and I support it's repeal.

Senator, that has nothing to do with NAFTA and you should know it.  While I admit to being touched by your appeal and I feel a great deal of your pain on this issue... I must say that ending Free Trade with Japan or the EU would go further to bringing the steel factories back.

It is however, my opinion that free trade between free nations is beneficial for all peoples of the world as nations that come to rely on each other economically come to rely on each other in other ways and thus, cooperation is born.  To cut ourselves off from the trade of others is a large step towards cutting ourselves off from the world.

While I agree that we should look to further review of those portions of the Agreement involving Mexico to figure out how we can bring a great benefit there, the benefits of this agreement in Atlasia have been long felt by her people.

The fact is that most manufacturing jobs in this country are not going to Mexico or China, they are going to machines work in a manner efficient enough to drive down the prices of good so that more Atlasians can afford them.

My fellow Senators, we call this "progress" and in order for our country to keep progressing, as it always has, we must stop thinking about how we can take it back into the past.

During the campaign, I pledged to help mining communities and old base manufacturing towns, and I intend to keep that pledge, as I support renewing these areas so that they can escape old patterns.

I have asked Senator Al to help me in these efforts, and I hope that he will responde soon.  I, however, mst move against him on this issue.  I do not support this bill, my fellow Senators, and I ask all of you to make serious judgements about the future of our nation and the world when considering this peice of legislation.

I yield back the floor.

Soulty, you are deluded if you think NAFTA is in any way free trade. it's regulations, as Gabu pointed ou,t drive up health care costs, harm our competitivity, and deprives us of our soberany. NAFTA uses free trade rethoric, but it's not free trade in teh true acception of the word.

[12th Doctor]

The question that must be asked about NAFTA is a simple one; who's benifited from it?

Have the hardworking folks of my district benifited? The miles of rusting steelworks, ruined and burned out factories and dying coal towns in my district speak for themselves.
Have ordinary Mexicans benifited? No... of course not. Mexico still has an appalling poverty problem, wages are low, labor laws are lax, working conditions are poor and it is becoming economically dependent on Atlasia to a worrying extent.
So who has benifited? I speak for my constituents when I say the answer is obvious... Yet again the only people to benifit in a meaningful way are out of touch Corperate Fat Cat's. Why should our trade policy be dependent on the whims of a tiny minority, most of which belong behind bars anyway?

NAFTA is bad for Atlasia, bad for Mexico and, as Senator Gabu points out, even bad for "Free Trade"... and I support it's repeal.

Senator, that has nothing to do with NAFTA and you should know it.  While I admit to being touched by your appeal and I feel a great deal of your pain on this issue... I must say that ending Free Trade with Japan or the EU would go further to bringing the steel factories back.

It is however, my opinion that free trade between free nations is beneficial for all peoples of the world as nations that come to rely on each other economically come to rely on each other in other ways and thus, cooperation is born.  To cut ourselves off from the trade of others is a large step towards cutting ourselves off from the world.

While I agree that we should look to further review of those portions of the Agreement involving Mexico to figure out how we can bring a great benefit there, the benefits of this agreement in Atlasia have been long felt by her people.

The fact is that most manufacturing jobs in this country are not going to Mexico or China, they are going to machines work in a manner efficient enough to drive down the prices of good so that more Atlasians can afford them.

My fellow Senators, we call this "progress" and in order for our country to keep progressing, as it always has, we must stop thinking about how we can take it back into the past.

During the campaign, I pledged to help mining communities and old base manufacturing towns, and I intend to keep that pledge, as I support renewing these areas so that they can escape old patterns.

I have asked Senator Al to help me in these efforts, and I hope that he will responde soon.  I, however, mst move against him on this issue.  I do not support this bill, my fellow Senators, and I ask all of you to make serious judgements about the future of our nation and the world when considering this peice of legislation.

I yield back the floor.

Soulty, you are deluded if you think NAFTA is in any way free trade. it's regulations, as Gabu pointed ou,t drive up health care costs, harm our competitivity, and deprives us of our soberany. NAFTA uses free trade rethoric, but it's not free trade in teh true acception of the word.

I will admit that my knowledge of the document is a bit more limited than I would like.  Perhapes I have nievely assumed that "Free Trade" means "Free Trade".  If you can present proof f your allegations, I would reconsider.

Mind you, I am not talking about the usual quid pro quo that is involved in an agreement, I must see where there exists a particular anti-Atlasian, anti-free trade bias.

Mainly, however, I am tired of people blaming trade for all of our problems.  I appologize for having assumed that to be your motive.

[12th Doctor]

After doing more of my homework on the subject, I must conclude that NAFTA represents the worst of what Free Trade, Protectionism and whole-sale disregard for Atlasia's interest have to offer.

I join Senator Bono on this bill, provided that, as the bill states, new trade aggreements be worked out seperatly between the nations involved linking Canada to Atlasia, Atlasia to Mexico and Mexico to Canada.

It is not right that so many people, here and abroad, are paying such a costly price for this agreement, and it must be revoked immediatly.

[Sam Spade]

This will meet a Veto from me for sure.

But my, the competitive contracting and unionization act, that's good stuff-

That legislation was a piece of cow dung, to put it mildly. 

Nonetheless, I will continue to support NAFTA and free trade in general and urge other senators to oppose this bill, because I have seen first-hand the positive effects that it's created in states like Texas and Louisiana and other states with regards to trade with Mexico and Canada.  Eliminating NAFTA will only hurt all parties in the long run.

If someone wanted to strengthen the environmental regulations in the NAFTA agreement, I think that is well warranted; otherwise I wouldn't change anything. 

Old-style factories are dead anyway and have been since the 1970s at least, fwiw.

[12th Doctor]

This will meet a Veto from me for sure.

Problem is, Mr. President, that NAFTA is not free trade, but rather nothing more than a jumble of regulations that do not benefit Atlasia, or her neighbors.

[12th Doctor]

And yes, I am aware that I am currently sitting in the John Kerry seat, I was for NAFTA and now oppose it.  That is not true, however, I was uncertain about NAFTA in the past and defended it against what I thought was an all out assult on Free Trade from the "Buchananites".  I was wrong.

[Bono]

bump. Debate, dammit.

[JohnFKennedy]

I hereby open the debate on this bill.

[JohnFKennedy]

It seems to me that the North American Free Trade Agreement (Hereafter referred to as NAFTA) has both positive and negative effects.

On the one hand it HAS encouraged free trade between Atlasia, Canada and Mexico with trade between the three nations increasing faster than between Atlasia and the rest of the world so in some ways it DOES encourage free trade.

However, there are problems with this as it can also be said to encourage protectionism by making us trade less with outside nations. As other nations enter into these trade blocs like NAFTA, they become less likely to trade with those from other blocs, NAFTA has the potential to start tariff wars with other nations around the globe which is not something we should be looking into.

Various economic studies have generally indicated that rather than creating an actual increased trade, NAFTA has caused trade diversion, in which the NAFTA members now import more from each other at the expense of other countries worldwide.

A big question we need to ask here is, "has it helped Atlasia?" Studies show that NAFTA has had a moderate positive effect on Atlasian exports, income, investment and jobs supported by exports (going from US surveys).  Here I am going to quote a few paragraphs which use data from 1996, although a bit outdated it was all I could find at a glance.

# Several outside studies conclude that NAFTA has resulted in a modest increase in U.S. net exports, controlling for other factors. A new study by DRI estimates that NAFTA boosted real exports to Mexico by $12 billion in 1996, compared to a smaller real increase in imports of $5 billion, controlling for Mexico’s financial crisis. An earlier study by the Dallas Federal Reserve finds that NAFTA raised exports by roughly $7 billion and imports by roughly $4 billion. The relatively greater effect on exports partly reflects the fact that under NAFTA Mexico reduced its tariffs roughly 5 times more than the United States.

# DRI estimates that NAFTA contributed $13 billion to U.S. real income and $5 billion to business investment in 1996, controlling for Mexico’s financial crisis.

# These estimates suggest that NAFTA has boosted jobs associated with exports to Mexico between roughly 90,000 and 160,000. The Department of Commerce estimates that the jobs supported by exports generally pay 13 to 16 percent more than the national average for non-supervisory production positions.

This information would seem to suggest that NAFTA has helped Atlasia more than it has hindered it so far.

As of yet I am undecided as NAFTA seems to help us economically, but does seem to go against my belief in free trade.

[Gabu]

The question that I have is how those studies pin down those increases and benefits were pinned down to having been caused by NAFTA.  As one article I read said, there are many, many variables involved in international trade and economics.  It seems to me that it would be very easy for proponents of NAFTA to simply point to economic benefits occurring after the institution of NAFTA and say, "See?  NAFTA caused that."

Am I sure that that's what's going on here?  No, of course not.  It could well be that these people do have a way of measuring NAFTA's impact that I'm unaware of.  If anyone knows anything about where those figures came from, I would be more than happy to give that information serious consideration.  If NAFTA has indeed caused those economic benefits, then I'll shift my stance to undecided.  At this point, however, what seems to be the case is that NAFTA's downsides are certain, whereas its upsides are debatable, and that doesn't make me too confident about it.

[Bono]

Can we get an opening?

[Gabu]

A week hasn't passed yet, but if that's a motion to end debate early, I second it; it does not appear to be the case that anyone else has anything to say.

[JohnFKennedy]

This is scheduled for a vote tomorrrow, can you not wait that long?

[Nym90]

I support this bill. NAFTA has been bad for all of the countries involved. It has not helped raise the standard of living of Atlasia.

Al and Supersoulty have pretty much said all that I would have said on this issue; I congratulate them for some fine comments.

Plus, what was so bad about the competitive contracting and unionization bill? It seemed like an excellent compromise to me.

[Gabu]

This is scheduled for a vote tomorrrow, can you not wait that long?

NO I WANT A VOTE RIGHT NOWWWWWWW

[12th Doctor]

Can we vote now?

[The Duke]

I'd simply like to point out that unilateral withdrawal from a trade agreement that is critical to the economic policies of our two neighbors is a horrible idea.

A better idea is to mandate that the State or Treasury Department enter into negotiations to reform NAFTA, and that the Senate lay out four or five key changes that will make the deal more of a legitimate free trade agreement.

I say this because peeing on Mexico and Canada makes my job a little harder.

[12th Doctor]

I'd simply like to point out that unilateral withdrawal from a trade agreement that is critical to the economic policies of our two neighbors is a horrible idea.

A better idea is to mandate that the State or Treasury Department enter into negotiations to reform NAFTA, and that the Senate lay out four or five key changes that will make the deal more of a legitimate free trade agreement.

I say this because peeing on Mexico and Canada makes my job a little harder.

I understand your concern, Mr. Secretary, that is why I demanded that this not end until seperate agreements are worked out.