1998 Ron Paul 103:1
Mr. PAUL.
Mr. Speaker, today, the House is
asked to vote to approve H.R. 2621, a fast-track
procedure under which international
agreements might be approved as far into the
future as October 1, 2005. The “fast track”
procedure requires the President to submit
draft international agreements, implementing
legislation, and a statement of administrative
action for congressional approval. Amendments
to the legislation in Congress are not
permitted once the bill is introduced and committee
and floor action votes may consist only
of “yes” or “no” votes on any potential agreement
as it is introduced.
1998 Ron Paul 103:2
The fast-track procedure bill, in addition to
creating an extra-constitutional procedure by
which international agreements become ratified,
sets general international economic policy
objectives, re-authorizes “Trade Adjustment
Assistance” welfare for workers who lose their
jobs and for businesses which fail, and creates
a new permanent position of Chief Agriculture
Negotiator within the office of the
United States Trade representative. The bill
would reestablish the President’s extra-constitutional
“executive authority” to negotiate
“side agreements” such as those dealing with
environmental and labor issues. Lastly, the bill
“pays” the government’s “cost” of free trade
by increasing taxes on a number of businesses
which recently benefitted by a favorable
judgment in federal tax court.
1998 Ron Paul 103:3
The Constitution clearly allows for international
agreements and clearly specifies the
means by which they are to be accomplished. Treaties, quite clearly are to be negotiated by
the President with advice and consent of the
Senate and can only become effective upon
being ratified by a two-thirds majority of the
Senate. The Constitution, however, does not
expressly confer authority to make international
agreements other than by treaties
and, of course, the tenth amendment specifies
that
“powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively,
or to the people.”
To ignore or allow the one branch of the federal government
to delegate it’s powers to others destroys
the liberty-protecting ability inherent to
the Constitutional separation of powers.
1998 Ron Paul 103:4
Congress does have, amongst its enumerated
powers, regulation of commerce with foreign
nations. Imposing import tariffs, quotas,
and embargoes, however economically detrimental
to the macro economy of the United States, are, at least, amongst powers delegated
to Congress by Article I of the Constitution. Regulating commerce, of course, refers
to enacting domestic laws which effect voluntary
exchanges between trading partners
who happen to be citizens of different governments.
1998 Ron Paul 103:5
International agreements between the
governments of those trading partners cannot
be construed to escape the stringent treaty
ratification process established by the document’s
framers just by suggesting Congress
has the power to enact domestic regulation regarding
foreign commerce. If this were an allowable
justification for bypassing the
constitutionally-mandated treaty process, Article I
Congressional powers would almost completely
undermine the necessity for the
Constitutionally-mandated treaty process. Treaties
regarding everything from international monetary
policy to military policy would suddenly
become “ripe” for the “treaty-making” power
of the President and Congress. Instead, a
bright line process exists whereby entering
into agreements with foreign nations under
which the U.S. government will do “X” if the
government of Ruritania does “Y” must be understood
to constitute an international agreement
and, as such, require the more restrictive
treaty process.
1998 Ron Paul 103:6
Moreover, because international courts regard
“treaties” and “agreements” as equally
binding on signatory governments, a stronger
case is made that they must be made subject
to the same constitutional process. Insofar as
H.R. 2621 ignores the lake of a congressional
role in the international treaty process and instead
attempts to make Congress an integral
part of a procedure for which it lacks any constitutional
authority, this bill can be opposed
on constitutional grounds alone.
1998 Ron Paul 103:7
Even if the procedure advocated by the bill
were able to survive what should always be
the Congressman’s initial threshold of constitutionality,
the bill contains provisions which will
likely continue our country down the ugly path
of internationally-engineered, “managed trade”
rather than that of free trade. As explained by
economist Murray N. Rothbard:
1998 Ron Paul 103:8
[G]enuine free trade doesn’t require a treaty
(or its deformed cousin, a ‘trade agreement’;
NAFTA is called an agreement so it
can avoid the constitutional requirement of
approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the
establishment truly wants free trade, all it
has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs,
import quotas, anti-dumping laws, and other
American-imposed restrictions of free trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering is
necessary.
1998 Ron Paul 103:10
In truth, the bipartisan establishment’s fanfare
of “free trade” fosters the opposite of
genuine freedom of exchange. Whereas genuine
free traders examine free markets from the
perspective of the consumer (each individual),
the mercantilist examines trade from the perspective
of the power elite; in other words,
from the perspective of the big business in
concert with big government. Genuine free
traders consider exports a means of paying for
imports, in the same way that goods in general
are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the mercantilists want to privilege
the government business elite at the expense
of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign.
1998 Ron Paul 103:11
Fast track is merely a procedure under
which the United States can more quickly integrate
and cartelize government in order to entrench
the interventionist mixed economy. In
Europe, this process culminated in the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single
currency and central bank and force relatively
free economies to ratchet up their regulatory
and welfare states. In the United States,
it has instead taken the form of transferring
legislative and judicial authority from states
and localities and to the executive branch of
the federal government. Thus, agreements negotiated
under fast track authority (like
NAFTA) are, in essence, the same alluring
means by which the socialist Eurocrats have
tried to get Europeans to surrender to the
super-statism of the European community. And just as Brussels has forced low-tax European
countries to raise their taxes to the European
average or to expand their respective
welfare states in the name of “fairness,” a
“level playing field,” and “upward harmonization,”
so too will the international trade governors
and commissions be empowered to
“upwardly harmonize,” internationalize, and
otherwise usurp laws of American state governments.
1998 Ron Paul 103:12
The harmonization language in last year’s
FDA reform bill constitutes a perfect example. Harmonization language in this bill has the
Health and Human Services Secretary negotiating
multilateral and bilateral international
agreements to unify regulations in this country
with those of others. The bill removes from the
state governments the right to exercise their
police powers under the tenth amendment to
the constitution and, at the same time, creates
or corporatist power elite board of directors to
review medical devices and drugs for approval. This board, of course, is to be made
up of “objective” industry experts appointed by
national governments. Instead of the “national”
variety, known as the Interstate Commerce
Act of 1887 (enacted for the “good reason”
of protecting railroad consumers from exploitative
railroad freight rates, only to be
staffed by railroad attorneys who then used
their positions to line the pockets of their respective
railroads), we now have the same
sham imposed upon worldwide consumers on
an international scale soon to be staffed by
heads of multilateral pharmaceutical corporations.
1998 Ron Paul 103:13
Lastly, critics of the bill convincingly argue
that language within H.R. 2621 regarding
“Foreign Investment” would establish new
rights for foreign investors and corporations
and new obligations for the United States. H.R. 2621 attempts to eliminate artificial or
trade-distorting barriers to trade-related foreign
investment by reducing or eliminating exceptions
to the principle of national treatment; free
the transfer of funds relating to investments;
reduce or eliminate performance requirements
and other unreasonable barriers to the establishment
and operation of investments; seeks
to establish standards for expropriation and
compensation for expropriation, consistent
with United States legal principles and practice;
and provide meaningful procedures for
resolving investment disputes. It is argued that
H.R. 2621 will congressionally activate the
nearly completed Multilateral Agreement on Investment
which covers 29 countries and forbids
countries from regulating investment or
capital flows and would establish new rights
for foreign investors and corporations and new
obligations for the United States. The MAI requires
governments to pay investors for any
action that directly or indirectly has an equivalent
effect of expropriation. The MAI would be
enforceable through international tribunals
similar to those of the World Trade Organization
without the due process protections of the
United States.
1998 Ron Paul 103:14
Because H.R. 2621 enacts an unconstitutional
foreign policy procedure, furthers our
nation down the internationally-managed (rather
than free trade) path, sets general international
economic policy objectives, re-authorizes
“Trade Adjustment Assistance” welfare
for workers who lose their jobs and for businesses
which fail, potentially undermines U.S. sovereignty through MAI, and preserves the
President’s executive authority to negotiate
“side agreements.” As such, I must oppose
the bill.
Notes:
1998 Ron Paul Chapter 103
The text of this chapter was inserted in CongressionalRecord and was not spoken on the House floor.
1998 Ron Paul 103:1 congressional approval probably should be capitalized: Congressional approval.
1998 Ron Paul 103:2 United States Trade representative probably should be capitalized:
United States Trade Representative.
1998 Ron Paul 103:3 tenth amendment probably should be capitalized: Tenth Amendment.
1998 Ron Paul 103:3 it’s powers is used in the possessive sense and not as a contraction for it is. As such,
it should not have an apostrophe: its powers. Cf.: its enumerated powers in
1998 Ron Paul 103:4.
1998 Ron Paul 103:5 lake of a congressional role probably should be capitalized and read:
lack of a Congressional role.
1998 Ron Paul 103:6 internationally-engineered probably should not be hyphenated:
internationally engineered.
1998 Ron Paul 103:10 tenth amendment to the constitution probably should be capitalized: Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
1998 Ron Paul 103:11 congressionally probably should be capitalized: Congressionally.
1998 Ron Paul 103:12 internationally-managed probably should not be hyphenated: internationally managed.
