U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | WTO |
WTO
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 82:6
Genuine free trade would involve low tariffs and no subsidies. Export-Import Bank funding, OPIC, and trade development subsidies to our foreign competitors would never exist. Trading with China should be permissible, but aid should never occur either directly or through multilateral banking organizations such as the IMF or World Bank. A true free trade policy would exclude the management of trade by international agencies such as the WTO and NAFTA. Unfortunately, these agencies are used too frequently to officially place restrictions on countries or firms that sell products “too cheaply” — a benefit to consumers but challenging to politically-favored domestic or established “competitors.” This is nothing more than worldwide managed trade (regulatory cartels) and will eventually lead to a trade war despite all the grandiose talk of free trade.
WTO
Free Trade
27 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 82:11
I look forward to the day that our trade debate may advance from the rhetoric of managed trade versus protectionism to that of true free trade, without subsidies or WTO-like management; or better yet, free trade with an internationally accepted monetary unit recognizing the fallacy of mismanaged fiat currencies.
WTO
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 12:2
Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the United States was dealt a defeat in a tax dispute with the European Union by an unelected board of international bureaucrats. It seems that, according to the WTO, $2.2 billion of United States tax reductions for American businesses violates WTO’s rules and must be eliminated by October 1 of this year.
WTO
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 12:3
Much could be said about the WTO’s mistaken Orwellian notion that allowing citizens to retain the fruits of their own labor constitutes subsidies and corporate welfare. However, we need not even reach the substance of this particular dispute prior to asking, by what authority does the World Trade Organization assume jurisdiction over the United States Federal tax policy? That is the question.
WTO
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
March 1, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 12:10
I can, however, say that the United States of America ought to withdraw its membership and funding from the WTO immediately.
WTO
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:34
You say, oh, that cannot be. We do not have to do what they tell us. Well, technically we do not have to, but we will not be a very good member, and this is what we agreed to in the illegal agreement. Certainly it was not a legitimate treaty that we signed. But in this agreement we have come up and said that we would obey what the WTO says.
WTO
WHAT IS FREE TRADE?
May 2, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 29:35
Our agreement says very clearly that any ruling by the WTO, the Congress is obligated to change the law. This is the interpretation and this is what we signed. This is a serious challenge, and we should not accept so easily this idea that we will just go one step further.
WTO
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
May 23, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 39:2
Both sides generally agree to subsidies and international management of trade. The pseudo free trader will not challenge the WTO’s authority to force us to change our tax, labor, and environmental laws to conform to WTO rules, nor will they object to the WTO authorizing economic sanctions on us if we are slow in following WTO’s directives.
WTO
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
May 23, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 39:8
But instead, I suggest we look more carefully for the cause of the coming currency crisis. We should study the nature of all the world currencies and the mischief that fiat money causes, and resist the temptation to rely on the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, pseudo free trade, to solve the problems that only serious currency reform can address.
WTO
Permanent Normal Trade Relations
May 24, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 40:6
* No Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, don’t be fooled into thinking this bill is anything about free trade. In fact, those supporting it should be disgraced to learn that, among other misgivings, this bill, further undermines U.S. sovereignty by empowering the World Trade Organization on the backs of American taxpayers, sends federal employees to Beijing to become lobbyists to members of their communist government to become more WTO-friendly, funds the imposition of the questionable Universal Declaration of Human Rights upon foreign governments, and authorizes the spending of nearly $100 million to expand the reach of Radio Free Asia.
WTO
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 44:4
The World Trade Organization came into existence, and we joined it, in a lame duck session in 1994. It was hurried up in 1994 because of the concern that the new Members of Congress, who would have much more reflected the sentiments of the people, would oppose our membership in the WTO. So it went through in 1994; but in that bill, there was an agreement that a privileged resolution could come up to offer us this opportunity.
WTO
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 44:5
Mr. Speaker, let me just point out the importance of whether or not this actually attacks our sovereignty. The CRS has done a study on the WTO, and they make a statement in this regard. This comes from a report from the Congressional Research Service on 8-25-99. It is very explicit. It says, as a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules. That is about as clear as one can get.
WTO
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 44:6
Now, more recently, on June 5, the WTO director, General Michael Moore, made this statement and makes it very clear: the dispute settlement mechanism is unique in the international architecture. WTO member governments bind themselves to the outcome from panels and, if necessary, the appellate body. That is why the WTO has attracted so much attention from all sorts of groups who wish to use this mechanism to advance their interests.
WTO
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 44:7
Interestingly enough, in the past, if we dealt with trade matters, they came to the U.S. Congress to change the law; they came to elected representatives to deal with this, and that is the way it should be under the Constitution. Today, though, the effort has to be directed through our world trade representative, our international trade representative, who then goes to bat for our business people at the WTO. So is it any surprise that, for instance, the company of Chiquita Banana, who has these trade wars going on in the trade fights, wants somebody in the administration to fight their battle, and just by coincidence, they have donated $1.5 million in their effort to get influence?
WTO
U.S. Membership In The Wprld Trade Organization
June 19, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 44:9
The membership in the WTO actually is illegal, illegal any way we look at it. If we are delivering to the WTO the authority to regulate trade, we are violating the Constitution, because it is very clear that only Congress can do this. We cannot give that authority away. We cannot give it to the President, and we cannot give it to an international body that is going to manage trade in the WTO. This is not legal, it is not constitutional, and it is not in our best interests. It stirs up the interest to do things politically, and unelected bureaucrats make the decision, not elected officials. It was never intended to be that way, and yet we did this 5 years ago. We have become accustomed to it, and I think it is very important, it is not paranoia that makes some of us bring this up on the floor.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:1
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress withdraws its approval, provided under section 101(a) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, of the WTO Agreement as defined in section 2(9) of that Act.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:5
So there is something very unfair about the system. It is an unconstitutional approach to managing trade. We cannot transfer the power to manage trade from the Congress to anyone. The Constitution is explicit. ‘Congress shall have the power to regulate foreign commerce.’ We cannot transfer that authority. Transferring that authority to the WTO is like the President transferring his authority as Commander in Chief to the Speaker of the House.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:6
Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to vote to get out of the WTO. We joined the WTO in 1994 in a lame-duck session hurried up because it was fearful that the new Members would not capitulate and go along with joining the WTO. The WTO was voted by the House and the Senate as an agreement, and yet it is clearly a treaty. It involves 135 countries. It is a treaty. It has been illegally implemented, and we are now obligated to follow the rules of the WTO.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:8
Some argue that, yes, indeed the WTO is not quite perfect. But we need it. We need the WTO to manage this trade. But at the same time, they have no options. We cannot change the WTO. This is our only opportunity to vote and dissent on what is happening.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:9
The people of this country are being galvanized in opposition to this. They never opposed GATT. GATT did not have the same authority as WTO. But now the WTO is being found to be very offensive to a lot of people around this country.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:10
It is said that the WTO has no control over our sovereignty. That is like saying the U.N. has no control of our sovereignty. Yet what body in the world directs our foreign policy? Where do we send troops around the world? Why do we put our troops under U.N. command? Where do we get authority to march into Kosovo and Somalia? From the United Nations. The WTO is the same.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:11
It is said that we do not have to listen to the WTO, but they threaten us with sanctions. They do not give us incentives. It is a threat, and we capitulate.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:12
Mr. Speaker, let me remind those who would like to reform the WTO that we are helpless, Congress cannot do that. We need a unanimous consent vote from the WTO members. So that is not going to happen. Even the committee describes what we are talking about as a system of fair trade administered by the WTO. Fair trade, fine, we are all for fair trade, but who decides the WTO? That is not fair to the American citizens.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:13
This is not an issue of trade. This is an issue of who gets to manage and decide whether it is fair trade or not. It is the issue of power, whether it is by the environmental bureaucrats or by the U.S. Congress. The one thing under this arrangement, the little farmer has very little say. He cannot get into the WTO and make a complaint. The great meat packers of the country may well.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:14
The Financial Times does support the WTO, but this is what they said after NTR was passed. ‘Already, many Washington trade lawyers are smacking their lips at the thought of the fees to be earned from bringing dispute cases in the WTO against Chinese trade practices. Says one, what will China be like in the WTO? It is going to be hell on wheels.’
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:15
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the giant meat packers may well be represented at the WTO, but the small rancher and farmer is not. The same people who promote this type of international managed trade where we lose control and it is delivered to an international bureaucracy are the same ones who fight hard to prevent us trading with Cuba and selling our products there.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:16
Essentially no one here advocating trade, as managed through the WTO, supports me in my efforts to open the Cuban markets to our farm products. There’s a lot of talk regarding free trade and open markets but little action. The support by the WTO advocates is for international managed trade along with subsidies to their corporate allies.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:17
Let me say that reforms are not permissible. The Congress cannot reform the WTO. Only they can reform themselves. But they work in secret, and they have to have a unanimous vote. Our vote is equal to the country of Sudan. So do not expect it to ever be reformed. The only way we can voice our objection is with this resolution. And there will never be another chance to talk about the WTO for 5 more years.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:18
Let me state that the Congress is required to state a constitutional justification for any legislation. The Committee on Ways and Means amazingly used article I, section 8 to justify their position on this bill. And let me state their constitutional justification. It says, ‘The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.’ But the Constitution says the Congress. But what we are doing is allowing the WTO to dictate to us.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:19
Even those on the Committee on Ways and Means said that they endorse this system of ‘fair trade administered by the WTO’. Who is going to decide what is fair? The WTO does. And they tell us what to do.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:21
Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be aghast at this WTO trade agreement. It is out of the hands of the Congress. It is put into the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. I would venture to guess even the Hamiltonians would be a bit upset with what we do with trade today. I am pro-trade. I have voted consistently to trade with other nations, with lowering tariffs. But I do not support managed trade by international bureaucrats. I do not support subsidized trade. Huge corporations in this country like the WTO because they have political clout with it. They like it because they have an edge on their competitors. They can tie their competitors up in court. And they can beat them at it because not everybody has access. One has to be a monied interest to have influence at the World Trade Organization.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:22
Earlier today I predicted that we would win this debate. There is no doubt in my mind that we and the American people have won this debate. We will not win the votes, but we will do well. But we have won the debate because we speak for the truth and we speak for the Constitution and we speak for the American people. That is why we have won this debate. It is true there are a lot of complaints about the WTO from those who endorse it. I think the suggestion from the gentleman from Oregon is a good suggestion. Those who are uncomfortable with the WTO and they do not want to rubber-stamp it, and they do not think it is quite appropriate to vote ‘yes’ on this resolution, vote ‘present.’ Send a message. They deserve to hear the message. We have no other way of speaking out. Every 5 years, we get a chance to get out of the WTO--that’s it.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:23
We cannot control the WTO. None of us here in the Congress has anything to say. You have to have a unanimous vote with WTO to change policy. Our vote is equal to all the 134 other countries; and, therefore, we have very little to say here in the U.S. Congress.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:25
But let me remind my colleagues, the American people are getting frustrated. They feel this sense of rejection and this loss of control. Why bother coming to us? We do not have control of the WTO and they feel like they are being hurt. This is the reason we are seeing demonstrations. They say if we did not have the WTO we would have anarchy? I predict chaos. I predict eventual chaos from WTO mismanagement. The trade agreement is unmanageable. They would like to do it in secrecy, and they like to wheel and deal; but it is unmanageable.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:26
Let me say there is another reason why we expect chaos in the economy and in trade. It has to do with the trade imbalances. Today we are at record highs. The current account deficit hit another record yesterday. It is 4.5 percent of the GDP, and it is significant. But unfortunately the WTO can do nothing about that because that is a currency problem. It too causes chaos. Yet there will be an attempt by the WTO to share the problem of imbalances. Just think of how NAFTA came to the rescue of the Mexican peso immediately after NAFTA was approved; a $50 billion rescue for the politicians and the bankers who loaned money to Mexico.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:27
Quite frankly, I have a suspicion that when the Chinese currency fails, that will be one of the things that we will do. China will be our trading partner. They are in the family of countries, so therefore we will bail out their currency. That is what I suspect will happen. Why else would the Chinese put up with the nonsense that we pass out about what we are going to do, investigate them and tell them how to write their laws? They have no intention of doing that. I think they are anxious to be with WTO because they may well see a need for their currency to be supported by our currency, which would be a tax on the American people.
WTO
WITHDRAWING APPROVAL OF UNITED STATES FROM AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
June 21, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 45:28
This is a sovereignty issue. We do not have the authority in the U.S. House of Representatives to give our authority to the President. We do not have the authority and we should never permit the President to issue these executive orders the way he does, but this is going one step further. We have delivered this sovereignty power to an unelected bunch of bureaucrats at the WTO.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 46:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to vote to get out of the WTO. We joined the WTO in 1994 in a lame-duck session hurried up because it was fearful that the new Members would not capitulate and go along with joining the WTO. The WTO was voted by the House and the Senate as an agreement, and yet it is clearly a treaty. It involves 135 countries. It is a treaty. It has been illegally implemented, and we are now obligated to follow the rules of the WTO.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 46:4
Some argue that, yes, indeed the WTO is not quite perfect. But we need it. We need the WTO to manage this trade. But at the same time, they have no options. We cannot change the WTO. This is our only opportunity to vote and dissent on what is happening.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 46:5
The people of this country are being galvanized in opposition to this. They never opposed GATT. GATT did not have the same authority as WTO. But now the WTO is being found to be very offensive to a lot of people around this country.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 46:6
It is said that the WTO has no control over our sovereignty. That is like saying the U.N. has no control of our sovereignty. Yet what body in the world directs our foreign policy? Where do we send troops around the world? Why do we put our troops under U.N. command? Where do we get authority to march into Kosovo and Somalia? From the United Nations. The WTO is the same.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 46:8
To the issue of whether or not we are obligated to follow the WTO rules, Congressional Research Service on August 25, 1999, did a study on the WTO. Their interpretation is this:
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 46:9
“As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.”
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 46:10
That is why we will be very soon changing our tax laws to go along with what the WTO tells us to do. In an article recently written by D. Augustino, he says:
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 46:11
“On June 5, WTO Director General Michael Moore emphasized the obedience to WTO rulings as not optional. Quote, the dispute settlement mechanism is unique in the international architecture. WTO member governments bind themselves to the outcome from panels and if necessary the appellate body. That is why the WTO has attracted so much attention from all sorts of groups who wish to use this mechanism to advance their interests.”
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 46:12
Indeed, this is a treaty that we are obligated to follow. It is an illegal treaty because it was never ratified by the Senate. Even if it had been, it is not legal because you cannot transfer authority to an outside body. It is the U.S. Congress that has the authority to regulate foreign commerce. Nobody else. We will change our tax law and obey the WTO. And just recently, the European Union has complained to us because we do not tax sales on the Internet, and they are going to the WTO to demand that we change that law; and if they win, we will have to change our law. The other side of the argument being, We don’t have to do it. We don’t have to do it if we don’t want to. But then we are not a good member as we promised to be. Then what does the WTO do? They punish us with punitive sanctions, with tariffs. It is a managed trade war operated by the WTO and done in secrecy, without us having any say about it because it is out of our hands. It is a political event now. You have to have access to the U.S. Trade Representative for your case to be heard. This allows the big money, the big corporations to be heard and the little guy gets ignored.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 47:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. It is said that we do not have to listen to the WTO, but they threaten us with sanctions. They do not give us incentives. It is a threat, and we capitulate.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 48:2
Mr. Speaker, let me remind those who would like to reform the WTO that we are helpless, Congress cannot do that. We need a unanimous consent vote from the WTO members. So that is not going to happen. Even the committee describes what we are talking about as a system of fair trade administered by the WTO. Fair trade, fine, we are all for fair trade, but who decides the WTO? That is not fair to the American citizens.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 49:2
Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentleman from Texas. This is not an issue of trade. This is an issue of who gets to manage and decide whether it is fair trade or not. It is the issue of power, whether it is by the environmental bureaucrats or by the U.S. Congress. The one thing under this arrangement, the little farmer has very little say. He cannot get into the WTO and make a complaint. The great meat packers of the country may well.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 50:2
The Financial Times does support the WTO, but this is what they said after NTR was passed. “Already, many Washington trade lawyers are smacking their lips at the thought of the fees to be earned from bringing dispute cases in the WTO against Chinese trade practices. Says one, what will China be like in the WTO? It is going to be hell on wheels.”
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 51:2
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman from Texas that the giant meat packers may well be represented at the WTO, but the small rancher and farmer is not. The same people who promote this type of international managed trade where we lose control and it is delivered to an international bureaucracy are the same ones who fight hard to prevent us trading with Cuba and selling our products there.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 51:3
Essentially no one here advocating trade, as managed through the WTO, supports me in my efforts to open the Cuban markets to our farm products. There’s a lot of talk regarding free trade and open markets but little action. The support by the WTO advocates is for international managed trade along with subsidies to their corporate allies.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 53:2
Let me say to the gentleman that reforms are not permissible. The Congress cannot reform the WTO. Only they can reform themselves. But they work in secret, and they have to have a unanimous vote. Our vote is equal to the country of Sudan. So do not expect it to ever be reformed. The only way we can voice our objection is with this resolution. And there will never be another chance to talk about the WTO for 5 more years.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 53:3
Let me state that the Congress is required to state a constitutional justification for any legislation. The Committee on Ways and Means amazingly used article I, section 8 to justify their position on this bill. And let me state their constitutional justification. It says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” But the Constitution says the Congress. But what we are doing is allowing the WTO to dictate to us.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 53:4
Even those on the Committee on Ways and Means said that they endorse this system of “fair trade administered by the WTO”. Who is going to decide what is fair? The WTO does. And they tell us what to do.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 55:3
Thomas Jefferson, I am sure, would be aghast at this WTO trade agreement. It is out of the hands of the Congress. It is put into the hands of unelected bureaucrats at the WTO. I would venture to guess even the Hamiltonians would be a bit upset with what we do with trade today. I am pro-trade. I have voted consistently to trade with other nations, with lowering tariffs. But I do not support managed trade by international bureaucrats. I do not support subsidized trade. Huge corporations in this country like the WTO because they have political clout with it. They like it because they have an edge on their competitors. They can tie their competitors up in court. And they can beat them at it because not everybody has access. One has to be a monied interest to have influence at the World Trade Organization.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 55:4
Earlier today I predicted that we would win this debate. There is no doubt in my mind that we and the American people have won this debate. We will not win the votes, but we will do well. But we have won the debate because we speak for the truth and we speak for the Constitution and we speak for the American people. That is why we have won this debate. It is true there are a lot of complaints about the WTO from those who endorse it. I think the suggestion from the gentleman from Oregon is a good suggestion. Those who are uncomfortable with the WTO and they do not want to rubber-stamp it, and they do not think it is quite appropriate to vote “yes” on this resolution, vote “present.” Send a message. They deserve to hear the message. We have no other way of speaking out. Every 5 years, we get a chance to get out of the WTO—that’s it.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 55:5
We cannot control the WTO. None of us here in the Congress has anything to say. You have to have a unanimous vote with WTO to change policy. Our vote is equal to all the 134 other countries; and, therefore, we have very little to say here in the U.S. Congress.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 55:7
But let me remind my colleagues, the American people are getting frustrated. They feel this sense of rejection and this loss of control. Why bother coming to us? We do not have control of the WTO and they feel like they are being hurt. This is the reason we are seeing demonstrations. They say if we did not have the WTO we would have anarchy? I predict chaos. I predict eventual chaos from WTO mismanagement. The trade agreement is unmanageable. They would like to do it in secrecy, and they like to wheel and deal; but it is unmanageable.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 55:8
Let me say there is another reason why we expect chaos in the economy and in trade. It has to do with the trade imbalances. Today we are at record highs. The current account deficit hit another record yesterday. It is 4.5 percent of the GDP, and it is significant. But unfortunately the WTO can do nothing about that because that is a currency problem. It too causes chaos. Yet there will be an attempt by the WTO to share the problem of imbalances. Just think of how NAFTA came to the rescue of the Mexican peso immediately after NAFTA was approved; a $50 billion rescue for the politicians and the bankers who loaned money to Mexico.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 55:9
Quite frankly, I have a suspicion that when the Chinese currency fails, that will be one of the things that we will do. China will be our trading partner. They are in the family of countries, so therefore we will bail out their currency. That is what I suspect will happen. Why else would the Chinese put up with the nonsense that we pass out about what we are going to do, investigate them and tell them how to write their laws? They have no intention of doing that. I think they are anxious to be with WTO because they may well see a need for their currency to be supported by our currency, which would be a tax on the American people.
WTO
World Trade Organization
21 June 2000 2000 Ron Paul 55:10
This is a sovereignty issue. We do not have the authority in the U.S. House of Representatives to give our authority to the President. We do not have the authority and we should never permit the President to issue these executive orders the way he does, but this is going one step further. We have delivered this sovereignty power to an unelected bunch of bureaucrats at the WTO.
WTO
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:2
* There are three reasons to consider voting against this bill. First, it perpetuates an international trade war. Second, this bill is brought to the floor as a consequence of a WTO ruling against the United States. Number three, this bill gives more authority to the President to issue Executive Orders.
WTO
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:3
* Although this legislation deals with taxes and technically actually lower taxes, the reason the bill has been brought up has little to do with taxes per se. To the best of my knowledge there has been no American citizen making any request that this legislation be brought to the floor. It was requested by the President to keep us in good standing with the WTO.
WTO
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:4
* We are now witnessing trade war protectionism being administered by the World (Government) Trade Organization — the WTO. For two years now we have been involved in an ongoing trade war with Europe and this is just one more step in that fight. With this legislation the U.S. Congress capitulates to the demands of the WTO. The actual reason for this legislation is to answer back to the retaliation of the Europeans for having had a ruling against them in favor of the United States on meat and banana products. The WTO obviously spends more time managing trade wars than it does promoting free trade. This type of legislation demonstrates clearly the WTO is in charge of our trade policy.
WTO
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:6
* Already, the European Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, has rejected what we’re attempting to do here today. What is expected is that the Europeans will quickly file a new suit with the WTO as soon as this legislation is passed. They will seek to retaliate against United States companies and they have already started to draw up a list of those products on which they plan to place punitive tariffs.
WTO
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:7
* The Europeans are expected to file suit against the United States in the WTO within 30 days of this legislation going in to effect.
WTO
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:9
* The trade war started two years ago when the United States obtained a favorable WTO ruling and complained that the Europeans refused to import American beef and bananas from American owned companies.
WTO
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:10
* The WTO then, in its administration of the trade war, permitted the United States to put on punitive tariffs on over $300 million worth of products coming in to the United States from Europe. This only generated more European anger who then objected by filing against the United States claiming the Foreign Sales Corporation tax benefit of four billion dollars to our corporations was ‘a subsidy’.
WTO
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:11
* On this issue the WTO ruled against the United States both initially and on appeal. We have been given till October 1st to accommodate our laws to the demands of the WTO.
WTO
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:13
* H.R. 4986 will only anger the European Union and accelerate the trade war. Most likely within two months the WTO will give permission for the Europeans to place punitive tariffs on hundreds of
WTO
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:17
* In addition to the danger of a recession and a continual problem with currency fluctuation, there are also other problems that will surely aggravate this growing trade war. The Europeans have already complained and have threatened to file suit in the WTO against the Americans for selling software products over the Internet. Europeans tax their Internet sales and are able to get their products much cheaper when bought from the United States thus penalizing European countries. Since the goal is to manage things in a so-called equitable manner the WTO very likely could rule against the United States and force a tax on our international Internet sales.
WTO
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:19
* The British also have refused to allow any additional American flights into London. In the old days the British decided these problems, under the WTO the United States will surely file suit and try to get a favorable ruling in this area thus ratchening up the trade war.
WTO
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:22
* The one thing for certain is this process is not free trade; this is international managed trade by an international governmental body. The odds of coming up with fair trade or free trade under WTO are zero. Unfortunately, even in the language most commonly used in the Congress in promoting ‘free trade’ it usually involves not only international government managed trade but subsidies as well, such as those obtained through the Import/Export Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and various other methods such as the Foreign Aid and our military budget.
WTO
FSC Repeal And Extra-Territorial Income Exclusion Act Of 2000
September 12, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 73:23
* Free trade should be our goal. We should trade with as many nations as possible. We should keep our tariffs as low as possible since tariffs are taxes and it is true that the people we trade with we are less likely to fight with. There are many good sound, economic and moral reasons why we should be engaged in free trade. But managed trade by the WTO does not qualify for that definition.
WTO
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
October 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 92:10
* We also make a mistake when we rush to change our domestic tax laws to comply with the ruling of an international body. Nobody in Congress or the administration wants to talk about it, but this is the first time in the history of our nation that we have changed our laws because an international body told us to do so. We are not considering this legislation because American citizens or corporations lobbied for it. We are considering it solely because of the demands of the WTO appellate panel, which agreed with EU complaints about our corporate income tax laws. We created the Foreign Sales Corporation rules back in the 1980s, but now the EU has decided our exempting a small portion of foreign source income from corporate taxes represents a ‘subsidy.’ We have plenty of federal subsidies in this country, but the FSC tax treatment assuredly is not one of them. FSCs do not receive a subsidy — no tax dollars are collected from taxpayers and given to FSCs. The FSC rules simply permit the parent corporation to pay less taxes on its foreign income. Most EU countries don’t tax their corporations on foreign income at all! So the EU complaint that the FSC represents a subsidy is ridiculous.
WTO
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
October 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 92:11
* This measure clearly demonstrates how our membership in the WTO undermines our national sovereignty. I have warned this body that the WTO does not promote true free trade, but rather enforces politically influenced ‘managed trade.’ I warned this body that our agreement to abide by WTO rulings would force us to change our domestic laws. I warned this body that our participation in the WTO was unconstitutional. Yet Members scoffed at this idea. Members of the Ways and Means committee said it was ‘unthinkable’ that the U.S. Congress would change our nation’s laws because of an order by the WTO. We were told that we had to join or else we would lose the international ‘trade wars.’ Today we see our sovereignty clearly undermined, and at the same time we stand on the brink of a retaliatory trade war by the EU. So the WTO has given us the worst of all worlds.
WTO
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2615, CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2000
October 26, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 92:12
* We should not change our tax laws at the behest of any body other than the U.S. Congress. If we want to help American businesses, we should simply stop taxing foreign source income. Today’s FSC measure will not appease the EU; they already have indicated that the House version of this bill is unsatisfactory to them. Worst of all, this measure gives the President further unconstitutional executive order powers to make changes when demanded by the WTO in the future. Never mind that the legislative power is supposed to reside solely with Congress. We simply cede our legislative authority to the WTO when we pass this measure, and it’s shameful that it likely will go unnoticed by the American people. We ought to tell them exactly what we are doing to national sovereignty when we pass this last-minute mixed bag of tax measures.
WTO
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are faced with a decision to do the right thing for the wrong reasons or the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. We have heard proponents of this FSC bill argue for tax breaks for U.S. exporters, which, of course, should be done. Those proponents, however, argue that this must be done to move the United States into compliance with a decision by the WTO tribunal. Alternatively, opponents of the bill, argue that allowing firms domiciled in the United States to keep their own earnings results in some form of subsidy to the “evil” corporations. If we were to evaluate this legislation based upon the floor debated, we would be left with the choice of abandoning U.S. sovereignty in the name of WTO compliance or denying private entities freedom from excess taxation.
WTO
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:2
Setting aside the aforementioned false choice of globalism or oppression by taxation, there are three reasons to consider voting against this bill. First, it perpetuates an international trade war. Second, this bill is brought to the floor as a consequence of a WTO ruling against the United States. Number three, this bill gives more authority to the President to issue Executive Orders.
WTO
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:3
Although this legislation deals with taxes and technically actually lowers taxes, the reason the bill has been brought up has little to do with taxes per se. To the best of my knowledge there has been no American citizen making any request that this legislation be brought to the floor. It was requested by the President to keep us in good standing with the WTO.
WTO
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:4
We are now witnessing trade war protectionism being administered by the World (Government) Trade Organization—the WTO. For two years now we have been involved in an ongoing trade war with Europe and this is just one more step in that fight. With this legislation the U.S. Congress capitulates to the demands of the WTO. The actual reason for this legislation is to answer back to the retaliation of the Europeans for having had a ruling against them in favor of the United States on meat and banana products. The WTO obviously spends more time managing trade wars than it does promoting free trade. This type of legislation demonstrates clearly the WTO is in charge of our trade policy.
WTO
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:6
Already, the European Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, has rejected what we’re attempting to do here today. What is expected is that the Europeans will quickly file a new suit with the WTO as soon as this legislation is passed. They will seek to retaliate against United States companies and they have already started to draw up a list of those products on which they plan to place punitive tariffs.
WTO
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:7
The Europeans are expected to file suit against the United States in the WTO within 30 days of this legislation going into effect.
WTO
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:9
The trade war started two years ago when the United States obtained a favorable WTO ruling and complained that the Europeans refused to import American beef and bananas from American owned companies.
WTO
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:10
The WTO then, in its administration of the trade war, permitted the United States to put on punitive tariffs on over $300 million worth of products coming into the United States from Europe. This only generated more European anger who then objected by filing against the United States claiming the Foreign Sales Corporation tax benefit of four billion dollars to our corporations was “a subsidy.”
WTO
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:11
On this issue the WTO ruled against the United States both initially and on appeal. We had been given till November 1st to accommodate our laws to the demands of the WTO.
WTO
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:12
H.R. 4986 will only anger the European Union and accelerate the trade war. Most likely within two months, the WTO will give permission for the Europeans to place punitive tariffs on hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. exports. These trade problems will only worsen if the world slips into a recession when protectionist sentiments are strongest. Also, since currency fluctuations by their very nature stimulate trade wars, this problem will continue with the very significant weakness of the EURO.
WTO
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:15
In addition to the danger of a recession and a continual problem with currency fluctuation, there are also other problems that will surely aggravate this growing trade war. The Europeans have already complained and have threatened to file suit in the WTO against the Americans for selling software products over the Internet. Europeans tax their Internet sales and are able to get their products much cheaper when bought from the United States thus penalizing European countries. Since the goal is to manage things in a so-called equitable manner the WTO very likely could rule against the United States and force a tax on our international Internet sales.
WTO
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:17
The British also have refused to allow any additional American flights into London. In the old days the British decided these problems, under the WTO the United States will surely file suit and try to get a favorable ruling in this area thus ratcheting up the trade war.
WTO
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:19
The one group of Americans that seem to get little attention are those importers whose businesses depend on imports and thus get hit by huge tariffs. When 100 to 200 percent tariffs are placed on an imported product, this virtually puts these corporations out of business. The one thing for certain is this process is not free trade; this is international managed trade by an international governmental body. The odds of coming up with fair trade or free trade under WTO are zero. Unfortunately, even in the language most commonly used in the Congress in promoting “free trade” it usually involves not only international government managed trade but subsidies as well, such as those obtained through the Import/Export Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and various other methods such as the Foreign Aid and our military budget.
WTO
FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000
14 November 2000 2000 Ron Paul 94:21
Free trade should be our goal. We should trade with as many nations as possible. We should keep our tariffs as low as possible since tariffs are taxes and it is true that the people we trade with we are less likely to fight with. There are many good sound, economic and moral reasons why we should be engaged in free trade. But managed trade by the WTO does not qualify for that definition.
WTO
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:91
We already accept the WTO and its international trade court. Trade wars are fought with this court’s supervision, and we are only too ready to rewrite our tax laws as the WTO dictates. The only portion of the major tax bill at the end of the last Congress to be rushed through for the President’s signature was the Foreign Sales Corporation changes dictated to us by the WTO.
WTO
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:93
The World Bank serves as the distributor of international welfare, of which the US taxpayer is the biggest donor. This organization helps carry out a policy of taking money from poor Americans and giving it to rich foreign leaders, with kickbacks to some of our international corporations. Support for the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, and the International Criminal Court always comes from the elites and almost never from the common man.
WTO
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:18
Presidents have, by executive orders, been willing to follow unratified treaties in the past. This is a very dangerous precedent. We already accept the international trade court, the WTO. Trade wars are fought with the court’s supervision, and we are only too ready to rewrite our tax laws as the WTO dictates.
WTO
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:19
The only portion of the major tax bill at the end of the last Congress to be rushed through for the President’s signature was the foreign sales corporation changes dictated to us by the WTO.
WTO
Questions for Secretary of State Colin Powell before the House Committee on International Relations
March 8, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 17:2
1. On the topic of the International Criminal Court, I have two questions. I am pleased that the administration, as well as the Chairman of this Committee, have spoken against the ICC treaty as an infringement upon U.S. sovereignty. As a policy matter, can you explain why the administration has not spoken similarly against the WTO, the International War Crimes Tribunal, or the idea of fighting wars based on UN or NATO resolutions and why these instrumentalities are any less threatening to our sovereignty? Also on the ICC topic, if the administration is not going to pursue ratification of the treaty, will you support my resolution, H Con Res 23, calling on the President to declare to all nations that the United States does not assent to the treaty and that the signature of former President Clinton should not be construed to mean otherwise?
WTO
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 18:2
There’s nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency. But a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism, and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
WTO
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 18:4
The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights.
WTO
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 18:10
But the artificial nature of today’s world trade and finance being systematically managed by the IMF, the World Bank and WTO, and driven by a worldwide fiat monetary system, has produced imbalances that have already prompted many sudden adjustments. There have been eight major crisis in the past six years requiring a worldwide effort, led by the Fed, to keep the system afloat, all being done with more monetary inflation and bailouts.
WTO
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
March 13, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 18:21
Conditions today could easily lead to rampant price inflation as the dollar depreciates. Trade chaos, already apparent, considering the number of complaints pending before the WTO, will surely worsen, leading to a greater cry for protectionism and militant nationalism which will then jeopardize international trade even more.
WTO
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 21:6
Codex is the vehicle through which the World Trade Organization (WTO) is working to “harmonize” (e.g. conform) food and safety regulations of WTO member countries. Codex is currently creating a guideline on the proper regulations for dietary supplements with the participation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We are concerned that the end result of this process will force the United States to adopt the same strict regulations of dietary supplements common in European countries such as Germany, where consumers’ cannot even examine a bottle of dietary supplements without a pharmacists permission. By participating in this process, the FDA is ignoring the will of Congress as expressed in DSHEA and in the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, which expressly forbid the FDA from participating in the harmonization process, as well as the will of the American people.
WTO
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 21:7
While Codex has no direct authority to force Americans to adopt stringent regulations of dietary supplements, we are concerned that the United States may be forced to adopt Codex standards as a result of the United States’ status as a member of the WTO. According to an August 199 report of the Congressional Research Service, “As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It [the US] is legally obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.” Thus, Congress may have a legal obligation to again change American laws and regulations to conform with WTO rules!
WTO
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 21:8
If Congress were to refuse to “harmonize” US laws according to strict Codex/WTO guidelines, a WTO “dispute resolution panel” could find that the United States is engaging in unfair trade because of our failure to “harmonize” our regulations with the rest of the world. In any such trade dispute, the scales are tipped in favor of countries using the Codex standards because of WTO rules presuming that a nation who has adopted Codex has not erected an unfair trade barrier. Therefore, in a dispute with a country that has adopted the Codex standards it is highly probable that America would lose and be subject to heavy sanctions unless Congress harmonized our laws with the other WTO countries. Harmonization may be beneficial for the large corporations and international bureaucrats that control the WTO but it would be a disaster for American consumers of dietary supplements!
WTO
Congressman Paul’s Statement on Dietary Supplement Regulation and Research
March 20, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 21:9
In conclusion, we once again thank Chairman Burton for holding this hearing and for all his efforts to protect the freedom of American dietary supplement customers and for the opportunity to express our concerns regarding the threat to American consumers posed by the WTO and the Codex Alimentarius process. We also express our hope that Congress will act to protect the freedom of American consumers from overregulation of dietary supplements whether imposed by the FDA or through the back door by an international organization such as the WTO.
WTO
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 25:15
When we follow only a military approach without trading in our dealings with foreign nations, and in particular with China, we end up at war, such as we did in the Korean War. Today, we are following a policy where we have less military confrontation with the Chinese and more trade, so relations are much better. A crisis like we have just gone through is more likely to be peacefully resolved to the benefit of both sides. But what we need is even less military involvement, with no military technology going to China and no military weapons going to Taiwan. We have a precise interest in increasing true free trade; that is, trade that is not subsidized nor managed by some world government organization like the WTO. Maintaining peace would then be much easier.
WTO
Inflation Is Still With Us
3 May 2001 2001 Ron Paul 30:9
A sad consequence of today’s conditions is that monetary policy encourages transfer of wealth and power to the undeserving. The victims of bad monetary policy then blame capitalism for the inequities. The leftist demonstrators at recent WTO, IMF, and World Bank meetings make a legitimate point that the current system has resulted in accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of some at the expense of others.
WTO
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
July 18, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 56:9
Today we have international government that manages trade through the WTO. We have international government that manages all international financial transactions through the IMF. We have an international government that manages welfare through the World Bank. Do these institutions really help the poor people of the world? Hardly. They help the people who control the hands of power in these international institutions and generally they help the very wealthy, the bankers, and the international corporations.
WTO
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:14
Modern-day globalism, since gold’s demise thirty years ago, has been based on a purely fiat US dollar, with all other currencies tied to the dollar. International redistribution and management of wealth through the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO have promoted this new version of globalism. This type of globalism depends on trusting central bankers to maintain currency values and the international institutions to manage trade equitably, while bailing out weak economies with dollar inflation. This, of course, has only been possible because the dollar strength is perceived to be greater than it really is.
WTO
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:34
Pseudo-free trade, managed poorly and driven by fiat money, is no substitute for true free trade in a world with a stable commodity currency, such as gold. Managed trade and fiat money, historically, have led to trade wars, which the international planners pretend to abhor. Yet the trade war is already gearing up. The WTO, purported to exist to lower tariffs, is actually the agency that grants permission for tariffs to be applied when complaints of dumping are levied. We are in the midst of banana, textile, steel, lumber, and tax wars, all managed by the WTO. When cheap imports hit our markets, it’s a good deal for consumers, but our manufacturers are the first to demand permission to place protective tariffs on imports. If this is already occurring in an economy that has been doing quite well, one can imagine how strong the protectionists’ sentiments will be in a worldwide slowdown.
WTO
Statement Opposing Unconstitutional “Trade Promotion Authority”
December 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 103:3
The loss of national sovereignty inherent in government-managed trade cannot be overstated. If you don’t like GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO, get ready for even more globalist intervention in our domestic affairs. As we enter into new international agreements, be prepared to have our labor, environmental, and tax laws increasingly dictated or at least influenced by international bodies. We’ve already seen this with our foreign sales corporation tax laws, which we changed solely to comply with a WTO ruling. Rest assured that TPA will accelerate the trend toward global government, with our Constitution fading into history.
WTO
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:64
The executive branch now has much more power than does the Congress. Congress continues to allows its authority to be transferred to the executive branch as well as to the international agencies such as the U.N., NAFTA, IMF and the WTO. Through executive orders, our Presidents routinely use powers once jealously guarded and held by the Congress.
WTO
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:65
Today, through altering aid and sanctions, we buy and sell our “friendship” with all kinds of threats and bribes in our effort to spread our influence around the world. To most people in Washington, free trade means internationally managed trade, with subsidies and support for the WTO, where influential corporations can seek sanctions against their competitors. Our alliances, too numerous to count, have committed our dollars and our troops to such an extent that, under today’s circumstances, there is not a border war or civil disturbance in the world in which we do not have a stake. And more than likely, we have a stake, foreign aid, on both sides of each military conflict.
WTO
Steel Protectionism
Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 15:5
What happened to the wonderful harmony that the WTO was supposed to bring to global trade? The administration has been roundly criticized since the steel decision was announced last week, especially by our WTO “partners.” The European Union is preparing to impose retaliatory sanctions to protect its own steel industry. EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy has accused the U.S. of setting the stage for a global trade war, and several other steel producing nations such as Japan and Russia also have vowed to fight the tariffs. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been tremendously supportive of the President since September 11th, recently stated that the new American steel tariffs were totally unjustified. Wasn’t the WTO supposed to prevent all this squabbling? Those of us who opposed U.S. membership in the WTO were scolded as being out of touch, unwilling to see the promise of a new global prosperity. What we’re getting instead is increased hostility from our trading partners and threats of economic sanctions from our WTO masters. This is what happens when we let government-managed trade schemes pick winners and losers in the global trading game. The truly deplorable thing about all of this is that the WTO is touted as promoting free trade!
WTO
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 19:9
The way these international events will eventually play out is unknown, and in the process we expose ourselves to great danger. Instead of replacing today’s international government, (the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the international criminal court) with free and independent republics, it is more likely that we will see a rise of militant nationalism with a penchant for solving problems with arms and protectionism rather than free trade and peaceful negotiations.
WTO
Export-Import Bank Is Corporate Welfare
5 June 2002 2002 Ron Paul 53:3
One thing that annoys me the most is when Members come to the floor and in the name of free trade say we have to support the Export-Import Bank. This is the opposite of free trade. Free trade is good. Low tariffs are good, which lead to lower prices; but subsidies to our competitors is not free trade. We should call it for what it is. We have Members who claim they are free traders, and yet support managed trade through NAFTA and WTO and all these special interest management schemes, as well as competitive devaluation of currencies with the notion that we might increase exports. This has nothing to do with free trade.
WTO
Before the House Ways and Means Committee
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 72:2
I hope Congress understands the historical significance of this bill. Once again, as when we created the ETI ("extraterritorial") tax regime in 2000, we are acting at the behest on an international body. We are changing our domestic laws, and changing the way we tax domestic parent corporations on the activities of their subsidiaries operating wholly outside of the U.S., because an international body demands it. The WTO appellate panel has spoken, and their will trumps Congress. Yet we were assured in 1994 that our membership in the WTO would never diminish American sovereignty.
WTO
Before the House Ways and Means Committee
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 72:4
Putting politics aside, however, the reality is that we must craft a bill that satisfies the WTO to avoid further trade sanctions. While reform of our overall tax system remains an issue for another day, it is vital that Congress begin to consider comprehensive overhaul of U.S. international tax rules.
WTO
Before the House Ways and Means Committee
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 72:6
It may not be possible to design a replacement that will replicate the same benefits (of the FSC) to the same taxpayers and still satisfy the WTO. On this point, I concur with Chairman Thomas. The committee should recognize that there will be winners and losers with any change to the existing rules. However, I believe it is important to balance the needs of various affected industries and implement any proposed legislation in a manner that avoids disruption of current business plans and activities.
WTO
Before the House Ways and Means Committee
July 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 72:15
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to craft a final bill (or conference report) that satisfies the WTO without punishing those U.S. corporations that have relied on the FSC structure to maintain their international competitiveness. I also urge the committee to use this debate as a springboard for wholesale reform of our international tax rules.
WTO
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:31
In the transition from the original American foreign policy of peace, trade and neutrality to that of world policemen, we have sacrificed our sovereignty to world government organizations such as the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. To further confuse and undermine our position, we currently have embarked on a policy of unilateralism within these world organizations. This means we accept the principle of globalized government when it pleases us, but when it does not, we should ignore it for our own interest’s sake.
WTO
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:38
Avoiding entangling alliances and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations is crucial, no matter how many special interests demand otherwise. The entangling alliances we should avoid include the complex alliances in the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. One-world government goals are anathema to the nonintervention and free trade. The temptation to settle disputes and install better governments abroad is fraught with great danger and many uncertainties.
WTO
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:67
Once it is recognized that ultimate authority comes from an international body, whether it is the United Nations, NATO, the WTO, the World Bank or the IMF, the contest becomes a matter of who holds the reins of power and is able to dictate what is perceived as the will of the people in the world.
WTO
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:112
But there is also a problem with economic understanding. Economic ignorance about the shortcomings of central economic planning, excessive taxation and regulations, central bank manipulation of money, and credit and interest rates is pervasive in our Nation’s Capital. A large number of conservatives now forcefully argue that deficits do not matter. Spending programs never shrink no matter whether conservatives or liberals are in charge. Rhetoric favoring free trade is cancelled out by special interest protectionist measures. Support of international government agencies that manage trade such as the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, and NAFTA politicizes international trade and eliminates any hope that free-trade capitalism will soon emerge.
WTO
Genetically Modified Agricultural Products
10 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 65:3
Also, this legislation praises U.S. efforts to use the World Trade Organization to force open European markets to genetically-modified products. The WTO is an unelected world bureaucracy seeking to undermine the sovereignty of nations and peoples. It has nothing to do with free trade and everything to do with government- and bureaucrat-managed trade. Just as it is unacceptable when the WTO demands — at the behest of foreign governments — that the United States government raise taxes and otherwise alter the practices of American private enterprise, it is likewise unacceptable when the WTO makes such demands to others on behalf of the United States. This is not free trade.
WTO
UNESCO — Part 2
22 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 87:7
UNESCO has designated already 47 U.N. biosphere reserves in the United States covering more than 70 million acres without congressional consultation. This project has led to the confiscation of private lands and restrictions. Because we do go along with the restrictions, it is somewhat like following WTO mandates. They come back with regulations and mandates, and we accommodate them by rewriting our tax laws. In the same way, they are moving in, with radical environmentism that originates from UNESCO and it filters into our grade schools as well as our kindergartens. UNESCO effectively bypasses congressional authority to manage Federal lands, including places like the Everglades, and it is done without congressional approval.
WTO
Encouraging People’s Republic Of China To Fulfill Commitments Under International Trade Agreements, Support United States Manufacturing Sector, And Establish Monetary And Financial Market Reforms
29 october 2003 2003 Ron Paul 115:9
H. Res. 414’s underlying premise is that sovereign countries have a duty to fashion economic policies that benefit the United States and it is a proper concern of Congress if these countries fail to do so. H. Res. 414 attempts to justify Congressional interference in the internal economic affairs of China by claiming that China is not living up to its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). I would remind my colleagues that the WTO has oftentimes ruled against the United States and Congress is right now changing United States tax laws to please the WTO. Ceding control over United States tax and trade policy to this international organization violates the United States Constitution and is contrary to the interests of American citizens. Therefore, it is not wise to endorse the WTO process by encouraging other countries to submit to WTO control.
WTO
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:10
Free Trade Fraud—Neo-mercantilism : Virtually all economists are for free trade. Even the politicians express such support. However, many quickly add, “Yes, but it should be fair.” That is, free trade is fine unless it appears to hurt someone. Then a little protectionism is warranted, for fairness sake. Others who claim allegiance to free trade are only too eager to devalue their own currencies, which harms a different group of citizens — like importers and savers — in competitive devaluations in hopes of gaining a competitive edge. Many so-called free-trade proponents are champions of international agreements that undermine national sovereignty and do little more than create an international bureaucracy to manage tariffs and sanctions. Organizations like NAFTA, WTO, and the coming FTAA are more likely to benefit the powerful special interests than to enhance true free trade. Nothing is said, however, about how a universal commodity monetary standard would facilitate trade, nor is it mentioned how unilaterally lowering tariffs can benefit a nation. Even bilateral agreements are ignored when our trade problems are used as an excuse to promote dangerous internationalism.
WTO
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:39
Also contributing to this bi-partisan, foreign policy view is the notion that promoting world government is worthwhile. This involves support for the United Nations, NATO, control of the world’s resources through the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, and the Law of the Sea Treaty—all of which gain the support of those sympathetic to the poor and socialism, while too often the benefits accrue to the well-connected international corporations and bankers sympathetic to economic fascism.
WTO
American Jobs Creation Act
17 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 39:2
My biggest concern with the bill, however, is not based on its contents. I object to the process underlying the bill and the political reason for which it was written. This bill is on the floor for one reason and one reason only: the World Trade Organization demanded that we change our domestic tax law. Since America first joined the WTO in 1994, Europe has objected to how we tax American companies on their overseas earnings. The EU took its dispute to the WTO grievance board, which voted in favor of the Europeans. After all, it’s not fair for high-tax Europe to compete with relatively low tax America; the only solution is to force the U.S. to tax its companies more. The WTO ruling was clear: Congress must change American tax rules to comply with “international law.”
WTO
American Jobs Creation Act
17 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 39:3
Sadly, Congress chose to comply. We scrambled to change our corporate tax laws in 2001, but failed to appease the Europeans. They again complained to the WTO, which again sided with the EU. So we’re back to the drawing board, working overtime to change our domestic laws to satisfy the WTO and the Europeans.
WTO
American Jobs Creation Act
17 June 2004 2004 Ron Paul 39:4
This outrageous affront to our national sovereignty was of course predictable when we joined the WTO. During congressional debates we were assured that entry into the organization posed no threat whatsoever to our sovereignty. But this was nonsense. A Congressional Research Service report was quite clear about the consequences of our membership: “As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.” With the Europeans and the WTO now telling us our laws are illegal and must be changed, it’s hard to imagine a more blatant loss of American sovereignty.
WTO
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:9
Both supported the UN and the internationalism of UNESCO, IMF, World Bank, and the WTO.
WTO
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of our position to remove ourselves from the WTO. My economic position is somewhat different from some of my allies, because I come at it from a free trade position.
WTO
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:3
I happen to believe in minimum tariffs, if any, but I do not believe that the process of the WTO and world government is a good way to do it. I do not think the WTO achieves its purpose, and I do not think it is permissible under the Constitution. Therefore, I strongly argue the case that, through the process, that we should defend the position of the Congress which gives us the responsibility of dealing with international trade, with international foreign commerce. That is our responsibility. We cannot transfer that responsibility to the President, and we cannot transfer that responsibility to an international government body.
WTO
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:5
Now this always bewilders me, when my conservative friends and those who believe in limited government are so anxious to deliver this to another giant international body. For instance, the WTO employs over 600 people. Free trade, if you are interested in free trade, all you have to do is write a sentence or two, and you can have free trade. You do not need 600 bureaucrats. It costs $133 million to manage the WTO every year. Of course, we pay the biggest sum, over $25 million for this, just to go and get permission or get our instructions from the WTO.
WTO
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:6
We all know that we raised taxes not too long ago, not because the American people rose up and called their Congressmen and said we wanted you to repeal this tax and change the taxes. It was done in order to be an upstanding member of the WTO. We responded and took instructions from the WTO and adapted our tax policy to what they desired.
WTO
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:7
One other issue that I think those who defend the WTO and call themselves free traders ought to recognize is that when we concede the fact that there should be a trade-off, it means they really do not believe in free trade. If you believe in free trade and the people have the right to spend their money the way they want, it would be as simple as that. It would benefit that country, because you could get your goods and services cheaper.
WTO
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:8
But this whole concession to the management of trade through the WTO says, all right, we are going to do this if you do this, and it acknowledges the fact that free trade does not work unless you get something for it. That may be appealing to some, but a free trader should not argue that way. Because free trade, if it is a benefit, it is simply a benefit.
WTO
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:9
In the 1990s when the WTO was originally passed, the former Speaker of the House made a statement about this. I want to quote from him. This is from Newt Gingrich. He was talking about the WTO: “I am just saying that we need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is a transformational moment. I would feel better if the people who favor this would be honest about the scale of change. This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected. I am not even saying that we should reject it. I, in fact, lean toward it. But I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power.”
WTO
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:11
Now the President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a free market think tank, from Auburn, Alabma said, “The World Trade Organization is supposed to be the great apparatus to push the world to greater economic integration. In reality, it was nothing but the resurrection of the old central planning fallacy that the world needs a central authority to manage it. The WTO has ended up politicizing trade by putting the stamp of officialdom on some very bad policy.”
WTO
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:13
The WTO has already been able to influence our tax laws. Not too long ago, Utah repealed a ban on electronic gambling for fear the WTO would come in and find that violated free trade.
WTO
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:14
Another area of importance to so many of us, both on the left and the right of the political spectrum, has to do with the Codex Commission regulation set up by the United Nations. How much regulation are we going to have on vitamins and nutrition products? The UN already indicated the type of regulation. Guess who may, most likely, be the enforcer of these regulations? It will be the WTO. The Europeans have much stricter regulations. This means that some day the WTO may well come to us and regulate the distribution of vitamins and nutritional supplements in this country, something that I do not think we should even contemplate. The case can be made that if they have already pressured us to do things, they may well do it once again.
WTO
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:15
Our administration is not too interested in the Kyoto Protocol, but that may well come down the road, and the enforcement of the Kyoto Protocol many believe will be enforced by the WTO.
WTO
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:18
I can remember an ad put out in the 1990s when the WTO was being promoted and they talked directly, it was a full page ad, I believe, in the New York Times. They said, “This is the third leg of the new world order.” We had the World Bank, we had the IMF, and now we had the World Trade Organization.
WTO
United States Should Leave World Trade Organization
9 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 57:19
So if you are a believer in big government and world government and you believe in giving up the prerogatives of the Congress and not assuming our responsibility, I would say, go with the WTO. But if you believe in freedom, if you believe in the Constitution and if you really believe in free trade, I would say we should vote to get out of the WTO.
WTO
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:41
This type of society would be greatly enhanced with a worldwide commodity standard of money. This would prevent the imbalances that are a great burden to today’s economy. Our current account deficits and total foreign indebtedness would not occur under an honest non-political commodity money. Competitive devaluations and abnormally fixed exchanged rates would not be possible as tools of protectionism. We can be certain that the distortions in trade balance and the WTO trade wars that are multiplying will eventually lead to a serious challenge to worldwide trade. The tragedy of trade wars is that they frequently lead to military wars between nations, and until the wealth is consumed and young men are no longer available to fight and die the process will cost plenty.
WTO
Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary Supplements are Under Attack
July 11, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 83:15
Ironically, it was primarily the U.S. that brought the WTO into existence in 1994, as the successor to GATT, the General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade. The WTO agreement specifically requires that the member nations--including the U.S.--conform its laws to meet the requirements of WTO decisions. Failure to conform results in stiff financial penalties. The Codex Commission and the European Union want the WTO to enforce Codex standards, which fly directly in the face of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act.
WTO
Henry Lamb- A Great Freedom Fighter Documents how your Dietary Supplements are Under Attack
July 11, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 83:16
Pascal Lamy of France was just selected as director general of the WTO. Lamy served as a member of the French Socialist Party’s steering committee and was chief of staff and representative of the European Commission for President Jacques Delors. Since 1995, he has served as a member of the Central Office of the Mouvement Européen (France) and as a member of the European Commission, responsible for trade.
WTO
Congress, Not The President, Should Regulate Foreign Commerce
27 July 2005 2005 Ron Paul 92:5
There is one specific provision in this bill that bothers me a lot, and that has to do with the Codex Alimentarius. These are rules and regulations written by the WTO, accepted by the European community, and it is specifically mentioned in this bill in chapter 6, paragraph number 6, and it talks about a forum where you can come and complain about regulation on vitamins and nutritional products.
WTO
Statement in Opposition to H.Res 552
4 September 2007 2007 Ron Paul 88:3
While I am in favor of unencumbered free trade, free trade cannot be enforced through threats or by resorting to international protectionist organizations such as the WTO. Even if the Chinese are recalcitrant in opening up their markets, it is not the role of the United States government to lecture the Chinese government on what it should or should not do in its own economy.
WTO
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 4 ... Cached
We all saw the recent demonstrations at the World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle. Although many of those who were protesting were indeed rallying against what they see as the evils of free trade and capitalist markets, the real problem when it comes to the World Trade Organization is not free trade. The WTO is the furthest thing from free trade. Instead, it is an egregious attack upon our national sovereignty, and this is the reason why we must vigorously oppose it. No nation can maintain its sovereignty if it surrenders its authority to an international collective. And, since sovereignty is linked inextricably to freedom, our very notion of American liberty is at stake in this issue.
WTO
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
Let's face it, free trade means trade without interference from governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. The WTO is a quasi-governmental agency and hence it is not accurate to describe it as a vehicle of free trade. Let's call a spade a spade. The WTO is nothing other than a vehicle for managed trade whereby the politically connected, campaign contributors and fat cats get the benefits of exercising their position as a preferred group. Preferred that is, by the Washington and international political and bureaucratic establishments.
WTO
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 6 ... Cached
As a representative of the people of the 14th district of Texas and a member of the United States Congress, sworn to uphold the Constitution of this country, it is not my business to tell other countries whether or not they should be in the WTO. They can toss their own sovereignty out the window if that is the choice they make. Thus, I cannot tell China or Britain or anybody else that they should not join the WTO. That is not my constitutional role. I can, however, say that the United States of America ought to withdraw its membership and funding from the WTO immediately.
WTO
International Protectionism
13 December 1999 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
While condemning the violence, we should celebrate the idea that political debate in this nation has turned some attention, if only briefly, to the WTO. Now we must take this opportunity and, in fact, never cease to explain the true problems created by this entity. Namely, that it is an assault on sovereignty and an affront to freedom. When we make that case more successfully, we will be able to move the politicians toward getting us out of the WTO.
WTO
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Those not completely convinced of the benefits of free trade acknowledge a "cost" of lower tariffs for which they demand compensation and fair management. Thus, we have the creation of the WTO. By endorsing the concept of managed world trade through the World Trade Organization, proponents acknowledge that they actually believe in order for free trade to be an economic positive, it requires compensation or a "deal."
WTO
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
Congressional approval for the WTO came in the lame duck special session in 1994 shortly after Republicans won the House and before the new Members were sworn in. Although it was actually a treaty that brought the WTO into existence it was called an "agreement" thus avoiding the required two-thirds votes in the Senate. A simple majority of both Houses would be enough to put the US in the WTO.
WTO
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Belonging to the WTO undermines national sovereignty. An encouraging sign is that those on the left, who frequently champion international causes, are becoming more aware of the shortcomings of organizations like the World Trade Organization when it undermines domestic laws, such as those protecting health, workers, environment, and consumers. The argument that membership in the World Trade Organization does not undermine national sovereignty is not supported by the facts. The CRS report on the World Trade Organization (August 25, 1999) is explicit in its explanation: "As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules."
WTO
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
The most blatant example of the World Trade Organization undermining US sovereignty was the recent ruling rejecting US tax breaks to US companies doing business overseas. The European Union charged that the Foreign Sales Corporation program established in 1984 is now an "illegal subsidy," and the WTO appellate panel supported this position. Despite the fact that the US unfairly taxes corporations for profits earned overseas, unlike our foreign competitors, this program was meant to compensate to some degree for this unfairness built into our tax code. Nevertheless the WTO, in a ridiculous ruling, claimed that allowing a company to keep more of its own money through lower taxes is a "subsidy" -- something given at the behest of government.
WTO
The World Trade Organization
20 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 March 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
This example clearly demonstrates that membership in the World Trade Organization is in conflict with our Constitution, undermining our legal system and our sovereignty. The message is clear. For us to be a responsible member of the WTO we must follow the rules, and, if we do, Congress must capitulate and raise taxes on our corporations by repealing the Foreign Sales Corporation program. As was explained by the CRS, members are "legally obligated to insure national laws do not conflict with World Trade Organization rules."
WTO
Time To Get Serious With Big Government
17 April 2000 Texas Straight Talk 17 April 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
My approach is to end the World Trade Organization. Although there is considerable sympathy for this approach, the groups and people who express their agreement seem content to work on minor side issues. Or, they refuse to work together with others who they distrust. This latter concern was suggested to me when I spoke to a coalition of the leaders of top conservative groups in Washington about the WTO this week.
WTO
China Bill Is Not Free Trade
29 May 2000 Texas Straight Talk 29 May 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
In the days and weeks ahead we will consider HJR 90. This is legislation that I introduced to remove the United States from the World Trade Organization, or WTO. Just as this PNTR bill ended up as a vehicle for foreign aid giveaways and managed trade, the WTO is an egregious attack on U.S. sovereignty and a colossal attempt at managed trade, all pursued in the name of free trade.
WTO
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 2 ... Cached
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
WTO
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
An extraordinary event occurred this week in Washington during the final days of the 106th Congress, an event that did not receive comment in either the media or the halls of Congress, save for my office. This event had been termed "unthinkable" only a few months earlier. It occurred despite clear constitutional prohibitions and at the expense of our precious national sovereignty. For the first time in the history of our country, Congress voted to change our domestic laws because an international body told us to do so. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has begun to dictate American laws.
WTO
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
More specifically, Congress voted to change our tax laws relating to Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs), solely because the WTO appellate panel deemed that our FSC tax rules constituted a "subsidy" - the EU contingent in the WTO had brought a complaint to the panel. Our FSC rules simply allow U.S. corporations to exempt a small portion of income earned abroad from taxes. No "subsidy" is involved; no tax dollars are given to FSCs. Moreover, most EU countries do not tax their corporations on any income earned abroad. Still, the appellate panel agreed with the EU and gave the U.S an October 1st deadline to change our tax laws.
WTO
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
I have opposed our membership in the WTO throughout my tenure in Congress. I strongly support true free trade, which occurs in the absence of government tariffs. The WTO, however, represents the worst form of government-managed trade.
WTO
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
More importantly, however, our involvement in the WTO threatens national sovereignty. The Constitution clearly vests the power to regulate trade solely with Congress, and Congress cannot cede with mandates in areas such as environmental protections, worker rights, and trade policy. Congress either blindly or willfully chose to ignore this very serious constitutional conflict when it voted in favor of WTO membership. However, a Congressional Research Service report was quite clear about the consequences of our membership: "As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules," (emphasis added).
WTO
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 8 ... Cached
Earlier this year I sought to address this terrible threat to our sovereignty by introducing a resolution withdrawing us from the WTO. I explained my concerns in a brief to the House Ways and Means trade subcommittee, pointing out the unconstitutionality of our involvement. I warned that the WTO could begin dictating our environmental, labor, and tax laws. These arguments were met with hostility and condescension. Subcommittee members stated that we need the WTO to avoid "trade wars," and that the U.S. Congress would never change our domestic laws to satisfy the WTO. "Unthinkable" was how one member put it. Judging by this week's vote, the "unthinkable" has become reality.
WTO
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
We should never change our national laws at the behest of any international organization. Congress simply has ceded its legislative authority to the WTO, and it is shameful that this action likely will go unnoticed by the American people. If we want to help American businesses, we should simply stop taxing their foreign income. The FSC measure will not appease the Europeans; the EU already has indicated that the changes are unsatisfactory to them. We stand on the brink of a retaliatory trade war with the EU, even though we were told that the WTO was needed to avoid such conflicts. So the WTO has given us the worst of all worlds.
WTO
U.S. Congress Bows to WTO Mandate
30 October 2000 Texas Straight Talk 30 October 2000 verse 10 ... Cached
Rest assured that the WTO assault on American sovereignty will not end here. What will happen when the Europeans object to another area of our tax laws? Will we change the way we tax individuals also? Perhaps the Europeans will object to our relatively liberal immigration laws, because they resent losing their talented citizens to America. Whatever the issue, the threat remains the same. Americans who care about sovereignty have every reason to be outraged.
WTO
"Buy American," Unless...
12 February 2001 Texas Straight Talk 12 February 2001 verse 5 ... Cached
Conflicting and inconsistent views on trade policy result largely from a lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Free trade is not a zero-sum game where some countries benefit and others inevitably suffer. On the contrary, true free trade by definition benefits both parties. Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements. In a true free market, individuals and companies do business voluntarily, which means they believe they will be better off as a result of a transaction. Tariffs, taxes, and duties upset the balance, because governments add costs to the calculation which make doing business less attractive. Similarly, so-called managed trade agreements like WTO favor certain business interests and trading nations over others, which reduces the mutual benefit inherent in true free trade.
WTO
Spy Plane Incident Shows a Need for New Policies
23 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 23 April 2001 verse 7 ... Cached
The best route to a lasting peace with China is true free trade, meaning trade without government barriers, subsidies, or multinational bodies like the WTO. Mao's China, closed from trade with the world, would have had little incentive to return our captured crew, and every incentive to use them as hostages. Today's China, while still authoritarian, depends on America to buy billions in goods. The Chinese government thus faced political and economic pressure to settle the dispute peacefully, rather than alienate millions of American consumers. Politics aside, few countries want to go to war with their customers or their suppliers.
WTO
Free Trade Means No Tariffs and No Subsidies
30 July 2001 Texas Straight Talk 30 July 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
I focus on the Constitution when voting on trade issues. This approach leads me to always oppose trade subsidies, as there is no enumerated power that gives Congress authority to send your money abroad to help big corporations sell their products. The current system allows the most powerful interests, with the largest political lobbies, to prevail in the Congressional pork subsidy game. So the biggest corporations tend to get bigger, while smaller competitors face a very uneven playing field. This is not free trade, but rather government-mangaged trade epitomized by international bodies like NAFTA and the WTO. As noted Austrian economist Murray Rothbard explained, we don't need government agreements to have free trade. In fact, true free trade means just the opposite- true free trade occurs only when government is not involved at all. We must remember that government-managed trade always means political favoritism. Merit, rather than politics, should determine which companies succeed in the export markets. Congress should abide by the Constitution and get out of the subsidy business altogether, so that real free trade can work and benefit all Americans.
WTO
WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
21 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 21 January 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
WTO
WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
21 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 21 January 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
Many Americans already have grave concerns about the loss of sovereignty inherent in our participation in global government organizations like the UN and the WTO (World Trade Organization). Few understand, however, the extent to which Congress already capitulates to the globalists when it writes the laws that affect all of us.
WTO
WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
21 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 21 January 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
Last week, the WTO appellate panel ruled that U.S. tax rules exempting some corporate income earned overseas from taxation constitute an "illegal subsidy." Incredible as it seems to liberty-minded Americans, the WTO and the Europeans are now telling us our laws are illegal and must be changed. It's hard to imagine a more blatant example of a loss of U.S. sovereignty. Yet there is no outcry or indignation in Congress at this naked demand that we change our laws to satisfy the rest of the world. I've yet to see one national politician or media outlet even suggest the obvious, namely that our domestic laws are simply none of the world's business.
WTO
WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
21 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 21 January 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
The sad irony is that Congress already changed our corporate tax rules last year in an attempt to appease the Europeans, who had filed a complaint with the WTO about our treatment of corporate overseas earnings. The Europeans accuse us of "subsidizing" U.S. companies by not taxing every last penny of their foreign income. Yet virtually all European countries have what is known as a "territorial" tax system, meaning they do not tax their citizens and companies on income earned outside the country at all. By contrast, America has a "worldwide" tax system, which imposes tax on income earned anywhere. Even so, the WTO continues to accuse of us maintaining an unfair practice, setting the stage for Europe to seek billions of dollars in sanctions.
WTO
WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
21 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 21 January 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
The solution to the WTO complaint is obvious- we should stop taxing foreign income altogether. Surely the Europeans could not object if we changed our system to more closely resemble theirs. After all, the IRS should not be taxing activity outside the U.S. anyway- it's outrageous that American citizens are actually less free than the socialist Europeans when it comes to income earned abroad. Prominent members of the Republican congressional leadership have stated they would prefer a territorial tax system, and I intend to hold them to it by introducing legislation that will end the taxation of foreign income.
WTO
WTO Demands Change in U.S. Tax Laws
21 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 21 January 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
This latest affront to our sovereignty makes it clear we must get out of the WTO if we hope to avoid further international meddling in our domestic affairs. The WTO is not about free trade, but rather government-managed trade that benefits certain corporate interests. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede even a small part of that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty which purports to do so. America's Founders never intended for our nation to become entangled in international trade agreements, and they certainly never intended to have our laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Congress may not object to being pushed around by the WTO, but the majority of Americans do.
WTO
Steel Tariffs are Taxes on American Consumers
18 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 18 March 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
What happened to the wonderful harmony that the World Trade Organization was supposed to bring to global trade? The European Union and other steel-producing nations are preparing to impose retaliatory sanctions to protect their own steel industries, setting the stage for a potential global trade war. Wasn’t the WTO supposed to prevent all this squabbling? Those of us who opposed U.S. membership in the WTO were scolded as being out of touch, unwilling to see the promise of a new global prosperity. What we’re seeing instead is increased hostility from our trading partners and threats of economic sanctions from our WTO masters. This is what happens when we let government-managed trade schemes pick winners and losers in the global trading game. The truly deplorable thing about all of this is that the WTO is touted as promoting free trade!
WTO
What Does Regime Change in Iraq Really Mean?
16 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 16 December 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
The practical consequences of meddling in the domestic politics of foreign nations are clearly disastrous. We should remember, however, that it is also wrong in principle to interfere with the self-determination rights of foreign peoples. Consider how angry Americans become when Europeans or Mexicans merely comment on our elections, or show a decided preference for one candidate. We rightfully feel that our politics are simply none of the world’s business, yet we seem blind to the anger created when we use military force to install governments in places like Iraq. The unspoken question is this: What gives us the right to decide who governs Iraq or any other foreign country? Apparently our own loss of national sovereignty, as we surrender more and more authority to organizations like the UN and WTO, mirrors our lack of respect for the sovereignty of foreign nations.
WTO
Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America
28 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 April 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
Our current approach of alternately using and ignoring the UN results in the worst of all worlds. When we play along and cite UN resolutions as justification for our actions, we give credibility to the concepts of international law and global government. We give up precious sovereignty not only to the UN, but also through trade agreements and organizations like the WTO and NAFTA. Yet while we cede more and more of our national identity to the globalists, we gain little in exchange. Other nations see us as willing to ignore the global rules when it suits our purposes, and we remain hated and mistrusted by much of the envious world. America would be far better off simply rejecting global government as a concept, and openly embracing true sovereignty.
WTO
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 1 ... Cached
Congress Grovels for the WTO
WTO
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 3 ... Cached
This unseemly saga stems from our participation in the World Trade Organization. Since America first joined the WTO in 1994, Europe has objected to how we tax American companies on their overseas earnings. The EU took its dispute to the WTO grievance board, which voted in favor of the Europeans. After all, it’s not fair for high-tax Europe to compete with relatively low tax America; the only solution is to force the U.S. to tax its companies more. The WTO ruling was clear: Congress must change American tax rules to comply with “international law.”
WTO
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
Sadly, Congress chose to comply. We scrambled to change our corporate tax laws in 2001, but failed to appease the Europeans. They again complained to the WTO, which again sided with the EU. So we’re back to the drawing board, working overtime to change our domestic laws to satisfy the WTO and the Europeans.
WTO
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
This outrageous affront to our national sovereignty was of course predictable when we joined the WTO. During congressional debates we were assured that entry into the organization posed no threat whatsoever to our sovereignty. Consider this rosy description by one well-known “libertarian” think thank: “The WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism helps nations resolve trade disputes without resorting to costly trade wars. The system relies on voluntary compliance and does not compromise national sovereignty.”
WTO
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
But this was nonsense. A Congressional Research Service report was quite clear about the consequences of our membership: “As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.” With the Europeans and the WTO now telling us our laws are illegal and must be changed, it’s hard to imagine a more blatant loss of American sovereignty.
WTO
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
The WTO has given us the worst of both worlds: We’ve sacrificed national sovereignty by changing our domestic laws at the behest of an international body, yet we still face trade wars. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by providing our foreign competitors with a collective means to attack U.S. trade interests.
WTO
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
As economist Murray Rothbard explained, true free trade does not require treaties or agreements between governments. On the contrary, true free trade occurs in the absence of government intervention in the free flow of goods across borders. Organizations like the WTO and NAFTA represent government-managed trade schemes, not free trade. Government-managed trade is inherently political, meaning politicians and bureaucrats determine who wins and loses in the marketplace. We should not allow globalist trade schemes to masquerade as free trade.
WTO
Congress Grovels for the WTO
17 November 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 November 2003 verse 9 ... Cached
One critical point must not be ignored. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade and craft tax laws. Congress cannot cede that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty that purports to do so. Our Founders never intended for America to become entangled in global trade schemes, and they certainly never intended to have our domestic laws overridden by international bureaucrats. Quasi-governmental organizations like the WTO are simply incompatible with American national sovereignty.
WTO
Bowing and Scraping for the WTO
28 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2005 verse 1 ... Cached
Bowing and Scraping for the WTO
WTO
Bowing and Scraping for the WTO
28 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
The World Trade Organization, which the United States joined in 1994, has been disastrous for American sovereignty. A tax bill passed last year provides a vivid example of just how blatantly Congress is surrendering our sovereignty to quasi-governmental bodies like the WTO. For years, high-tax Europe has objected to how we tax American companies on their overseas earnings. The EU took its dispute to the WTO grievance board, which voted in favor of the Europeans. The WTO ruling was clear: Congress must change American law to comply with European rules.
WTO
Bowing and Scraping for the WTO
28 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
Make no mistake about it: WTO ministers tell Congress to change American laws, and Congress complies. In fact, congressional leaders obediently scrambled to make sure the corporate tax bill passed before a WTO deadline. Thousands and thousands of bills languish in committees, yet a bill ordered by the WTO was pushed to the front of the line.
WTO
Bowing and Scraping for the WTO
28 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Americans should expect to see more of the laws we live under being dictated by international bodies. Later this year, all European Union countries will unify their food supplement laws to conform with rules established by a United Nations commission. This commission, called Codex Alimentarius, calls for strict control of dietary supplements. Under the Codex rules, Europeans will need a doctor’s prescription to obtain even basic vitamins. Thanks to the WTO, Americans may find their supplements similarly restricted in an attempt to harmonize the regulatory playing field between the U.S. and Europe. After all, this is the new reality in the WTO era: no nation may enjoy an “unfair” trade or regulatory environment.
WTO
Bowing and Scraping for the WTO
28 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
This affront to our national sovereignty was of course predictable when we joined the WTO. A Congressional Research Service report was quite clear about the consequences of our membership: “As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules.”
WTO
Bowing and Scraping for the WTO
28 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Our membership in the WTO is unconstitutional, which is to say illegal. The Constitution grants Congress, and Congress alone, the authority to regulate trade. Congress cannot cede that authority to the WTO or any other international body, nor can the President legally sign any treaty that purports to do so. When Congress in essence transfers its authority over trade matters to the WTO, it acts illegally.
WTO
Bowing and Scraping for the WTO
28 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 28 February 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Fortunately, Congress has an opportunity this year to withdraw our membership in the WTO. When the U.S. first joined the organization in 1994, a rushed lame-duck Congress inserted a 5 year review clause to garner some last-minute votes. This clause allows members of Congress to bring a resolution every 5 years calling for a vote on our continued membership. I plan to join with other House colleagues this year in demanding withdrawal from the WTO. Our sovereignty is a precious national asset, and the American people are tired of watching Congress sell out one constitutional principle after another.
WTO
Dietary Supplements and Health Freedom
25 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 25 April 2005 verse 19 ... Cached
My regular listeners already know about another looming threat to dietary supplement freedom. The Codex Alimentarius Commission, an offshoot of the United Nations, is working to “harmonize” food and supplement rules between all nations of the world. Under Codex rules, even basic vitamins and minerals will require a doctor’s prescription. As Europe moves ever closer to adopting Codex standards, it becomes more likely that the World Trade Organization will attempt to force those standards on the United States. This is yet another example of how the WTO threatens American sovereignty. By cooperating with Codex, the FDA is blatantly ignoring the will of Congress and the American people.
WTO
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 1 ... Cached
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
WTO
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week I had an opportunity to present the case against US membership in the World Trade Organization at a seminar in Washington. Later this summer Congress will have a similar opportunity to raise objections about the WTO when several colleagues and I bring a resolution to the House floor seeking the wholesale withdrawal of the US from the organization.
WTO
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
The World Trade Organization by its own admission is not just about trade. According to the WTO website, liberalizing trade actually takes a back seat to its more activist ambitions, such as “development”-- a euphemism for wealth-transfers from rich nations to poor nations. Likewise, their own website promises that, “In the WTO, commercial interests do not take priority over environmental protection.” In 1994 the WTO created the Trade and Environment Committee to bring “environmental and sustainable development issues into the mainstream of WTO work.” What does this mean? It would not take much imagination to tie any environmental issue to trade and thus invite WTO meddling.
WTO
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
What about the Kyoto Accords, the international agreement that aims to solve the supposed problem of global warming? Clearly the Kyoto Accords, to which the United States has not agreed, will affect world trade. Will this be an open door for the WTO to act as enforcer toward the United States and other countries that refuse to sign Kyoto? Two leading UN observers, Henry Lamb of Sovereignty International and Cathie Adams of Texas Eagle Forum, have reported that the WTO is widely recognized as the enforcement tool of choice for the Kyoto treaty.
WTO
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Even Newt Gingrich, a supporter of American membership in the WTO, recognized in 1994 that far more than trade rules were at stake:
WTO
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
In reality, the WTO is the third leg of the globalists’ plan for a one-world, centrally-managed economic system. The intention behind the creation of the WTO was to have a third institution to handle the trade side of international economic cooperation, joining two institutions created by Bretton Woods, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. For the United States to give up any bit of its sovereignty to these unelected and unaccountable organizations is economic suicide. International organizations can never “manage” trade better than it naturally occurs in a true free market of goods and services. At best, WTO acts as a meddling middleman, taking a cut for unnecessary services provided. At worst, it forces the United States to change its domestic laws in ways that seriously harm our economy and our sovereignty.
WTO
Does the WTO Serve Our Interests?
16 May 2005 Texas Straight Talk 16 May 2005 verse 9 ... Cached
Economist Murray Rothbard said it best: You don’t need a treaty to have free trade. Governments and quasi-government bodies like the WTO can only politicize and interfere with the natural flow of goods and services across borders. When we cede even a fraction of our sovereignty to an organization like the WTO, we can hardly hope to become more prosperous or more free.
WTO
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty. When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple. I can assure you first hand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union. Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year.
WTO
CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade
06 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 06 June 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
CAFTA means more government! Like the UN, NAFTA, and the WTO, it represents another stone in the foundation of a global government system. Most Americans already understand they are governed by largely unaccountable forces in Washington, yet now they face having their domestic laws influenced by bureaucrats in Brussels, Zurich, or Mexico City.
WTO
CAFTA and Dietary Supplements
18 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 18 July 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
The Codex Alimentarius Commission, organized by the United Nations in the 1960s, is charged with “harmonizing” food and supplement rules between all nations of the world. Under Codex rules, even basic vitamins and minerals require a doctor’s prescription. The European Union already has adopted Codex-type regulations, regulations that will be in effect across Europe later this year. This raises concerns that the Europeans will challenge our relatively open market for health supplements in a WTO forum. This is hardly far-fetched, as Congress already has cravenly changed our tax laws to comply with a WTO order.
WTO
CAFTA and Dietary Supplements
18 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 18 July 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
Like WTO, CAFTA increases the possibility that Codex regulations will be imposed on the American public. Section 6 of CAFTA discusses Codex as a regulatory standard for nations that join the agreement. If CAFTA has nothing to do with dietary supplements, as CAFTA supporters claim, why in the world does it specifically mention Codex?
WTO
CAFTA and Dietary Supplements
18 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 18 July 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
Unquestionably there has been a slow but sustained effort to regulate dietary supplements on an international level. WTO and CAFTA are part of this effort. Passage of CAFTA does not mean your supplements will be outlawed immediately, but it will mean that another international trade body will have a say over whether American supplement regulations meet international standards. And make no mistake about it, those international standards are moving steadily toward the Codex regime and its draconian restrictions on health freedom. So the question is this: Does CAFTA, with its link to Codex, make it more likely or less likely that someday you will need a doctor’s prescription to buy even simple supplements like Vitamin C? The answer is clear. CAFTA means less freedom for you, and more control for bureaucrats who do not answer to American voters.
WTO
CAFTA and Dietary Supplements
18 July 2005 Texas Straight Talk 18 July 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
This is why the drug companies support WTO and CAFTA. They see international trade agreements as a way to do an end run around American law and restrict supplements through international regulations.
WTO
Exposing the True Isolationists
23 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 23 July 2007 verse 5 ... Cached
In terms of modern politics, isolationism is not so much an approach to American foreign policy as it is the result of the policies enacted by proponents of globalism. From offensive statements about “Old Europe” (as differentiated from “New Europe”), necessitated by the desire to justify a military presence in Iraq, to conflicts at the WTO, the flowery rhetoric of the neo-conservatives often takes vicious turns when unrealistic policies meet with reality.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.