|
02 March
2000
Transcript: House Member Introduces WTO Withdrawal Resolution
(Rep. Paul sees "egregious
attack" on national sovereignty) (1140)
A U.S.
congressman from Texas has introduced
a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives that triggers a process
that will require Congress to vote, within a few months, on whether the United
States should withdraw from the World
Trade Organization (WTO).
Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, introduced the bill March
1. Congressional leaders had expected some member to introduce such
legislation; the 1994 law implementing U.S.
participation in the WTO authorizes special consideration by Congress of
such legislation once every five years.
Under the law, the bill is considered "privileged" -- no
leaders or other members can use tactics to stall or block Congress from
voting on it.
Paul submitted the resolution on the first day allowed under the law,
the day when the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) was
required to send Congress a report on the first five years of U.S.
participation in the WTO. USTR released the report publicly March 2 on its
web site at http://www.ustr.gov/reports/tpa/2000/index.html.
"The real problem when it comes to the World Trade Organization is
not free trade," Paul said in a speech on the House floor announcing
introduction of the resolution. "The World Trade Organization 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," he said.
Republican House leaders have said they expect to defeat the resolution
but also expect a bitter debate to precede the vote.
Following is the transcript of Paul's statement as published in the
Congressional Record:
(begin transcript)
INTRODUCING LEGISLATION CALLING FOR THE
UNITED STATES TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce my
introduction of and request cosponsors for a privileged resolution to
withdraw the United States
from the World Trade Organization.
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 [$2,200
million] of United States
tax reductions for American businesses violates WTO's
rules and must be eliminated by October 1 of this year.
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.
At last reading, the Constitution required that all appropriation bills
originate in the House, and specified that only Congress has the power to
lay and collect taxes. Taxation without representation was a predominant
reason for America's
fight for independence during the American Revolution. Yet, now we face an
unconstitutional delegation of taxing authority to an unelected body of
international bureaucrats.
Let me assure Members that this Nation does not need yet another
bureaucratic hurdle to tax reduction. Article 1, Section 8 of the United
States Constitution reserves to Congress alone the authority for regulating
foreign commerce.
According to Article II, section 2, it reserves to the Senate the sole
power to ratify agreements, namely, treaties, between the United
States government and other governments.
We all saw the recent demonstrations at the World Trade Organization
meetings in Seattle. Although
many of those folks who were protesting were indeed rallying against what
they see as evils of free trade and capitalist markets, the real problem
when it comes to the World Trade Organization is not free trade. The World
Trade Organization 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. Since sovereignty is linked so closely to freedom, our very
notion of American liberty is at stake in this issue.
Let us face it, free trade means trade without interference from
governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. The World Trade Organization
is a quasi-governmental agency, and hence, it is not accurate to describe
it as a vehicle of free trade. Let us call a spade a spade: the World Trade
Organization is nothing other than a vehicle for managed trade whereby the
politically connected get the benefits of exercising their position as a
preferred group; preferred, that is, by the Washington and international
political and bureaucratic establishments.
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 World Trade Organization. They can toss their own
sovereignty out the window if they choose. I cannot tell China
or Britain
or anybody else that they should or should not join the World Trade
Organization. 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.
We need to better explain that the Founding Fathers believed that
tariffs were meant to raise revenues, not to erect trade barriers. American
colonists even before the war for independence understood the difference.
When our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they placed the
treaty-making authority with the President and the Senate, but the
authority to regulate commerce with the House. The effects of this are
obvious. The Founders left us with a system that made no room for
agreements regarding international trade; hence, our Nation was to be governed
not by protection, but rather, by market principles. Trade barriers were
not to be erected, period.
A revenue tariff was to be a major contributor to the U.S. Treasury, but
only to fund the limited and constitutionally authorized responsibilities
of the Federal government. Thus, the tariff would be low.
The colonists and Founders clearly recognized that these are tariffs or
taxes on American consumers, they are not truly
taxes on foreign corporations. This realization was made obvious by the
British government's regulation of trade with the colonies, but it is a
realization that has apparently been lost by today's protectionists.
Simply, protectionists seem to fail even to realize that raising the
tariff is a tax hike on the American people.
(end transcript)
02 March
2000
Barshefsky Says U.S.
Withdrawal from WTO Unthinkable
(Says report provides ample support for
WTO membership) (510)
By Merle D. Kellerhals,
Jr.
Washington File Staff Writer
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Trade
Representative Charlene Barshefsky says it would be "unthinkable"
for the United States
to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO).
"Were that to happen, it would be more than a missed opportunity;
it would be a tragedy because the policies and achievements the WTO represents
are so important not only to the United
States but to the world,"
Barshefsky said.
Ambassador Barshefsky made the remarks March 2 at the Johns Hopkins
School of Advanced International Studies in Washington.
She also said China's
accession into the WTO and proposed congressional approval of permanent
Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status would do more than expand trade, but
also support political reforms in China.
The Clinton administration
transmitted to Congress March 2 its "2000 Trade Policy Agenda"
and "1999 Annual Report of the President of the United
States on the Trade Agreements
Program."
This year's report contains a special report on the WTO required by the
1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which created the WTO. The special
report provides a comprehensive review of the WTO's
record over five years.
U.S. Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, introduced a
resolution in Congress March 1 that begins a process requiring Congress to
vote on whether the United States
should withdraw from the WTO. The 1994 law authorizes special consideration
by Congress of such legislation once every five years.
Under the law, the resolution is considered "privileged" --
which means no members of Congress can use tactics to stall or block
Congress from voting on it.
Barshefsky, meeting with reporters after her speech, said she hoped the
vote to continue WTO membership would not be too close. U.S. House
Republican leaders have said they expect to defeat the Paul resolution, but
only after a bitter debate.
"We'll be working with a number of members of Congress on this, and
of course you have a 90-legislative day window, which is a lot of
days," she said.
She said that the report released March 2 contains approximately 150
pages on the benefits of continued U.S.
membership and starts the administration's campaign in Congress to defeat
the resolution.
The administration has been making progress with Congress on the NTR
vote for China,
she also said.
"Congress has before it ample information on the basis of which to
provide China
permanent normal trade relations status," she said. "The timing
on the vote will be discussed between the administration and
Congress."
The president has already met with perhaps 50 or so members of Congress
with a number of other meetings scheduled, she said. "And, I think
that members have expressed a variety of thoughtful views on the issue. And
many, many members are keeping very much an open mind."
(The Washington
File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Website: usinfo.state.gov)
|