[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2345-E2346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 FAST TRACK--TOO EARLY FOR AN OBITUARY

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 13, 1997

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, is fact track dead? Hardly. This 25-year-old 
process is ingrained in the political process and will not soon 
disappear. The imperial presidency is alive and well as Congress 
continues the process of acceding power to the executive branch through 
such processes as the line item veto, administrative law, War Powers 
Act, Executive orders, and trade negotiations. The attempt at 
devolution, which is now ongoing, does little to attach the ever 
growing power of the Presidency. As Congress--and especially the 
House--reneges on its responsibility under the concept of separation of 
powers, the people suffer by loosing their most important conduit to 
the Federal Government.
  Members opposed fast track for various reasons, some sensible, some 
less so. Serious proponents consistently stated their support came from 
their convictions regarding free trade. However, political deals, 
threats and pressure from financial supporters influenced less serious 
supporters. This process is nothing new, but in the recent efforts to 
pass fast track, record offers to persuade Members of Congress to 
change their vote were made on both sides of the debate. The President 
and the congressional leaders had a lot to offer and the unions and 
environmentalists were not bashful about their use of intimidation.
  In spite of the blatant politics of it all, there were among us 
principled free traders, true believers in U.S. sovereignty, serious 
concerns for domestic labor, and environmental laws and dedicated 
populist protectionists.
  And then there were the laissez-faire capitalists, individual 
liberty, U.S. sovereignty and low tariff proponents, positions held by 
a scant few. The supporters of fast track cavalierly dismissed all 
thoughtful opposition. The delivery of power to the Presidency argument 
was said to be bogus; the treaty versus agreement argument was argued 
to be nothing more than designed by those wanting to hide behind the 
Constitution and those concerned about NAFTA boards, world trade 
organizations, or the multilateral agreement on investments were all 
just conspiracy nuts the same group of individuals who are concerned 
about who is flying the unmarked black helicopters around the country. 
So much for serious debate.
  A few points worth noting:
  First, most members of the coalition, who pushed fast track, have in 
the past, promoted war under the U.N. banner, bailouts by the IMF, 
foreign aid, corporate welfare, secret centralized banking, and World 
Bank loans? Is there any wonder that a populist backlash, from Nadar to 
Buchanan, blossomed and actually won this round?
  Second, the chief corporate supporters of the fast track process who 
claimed to be defenders of freedom and free trade have essentially no 
record of ever promoting free market

[[Page E2346]]

economics or any organization dedicated to capitalism and sound money. 
They are all experts in understanding the corporate welfare state and 
are promoters of the Export/Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment 
Corporation, foreign aid, the military industrial complex, fractional 
reserve banking, public housing, all types of government guaranteed 
loans and much more. So why this sudden loyalty to freedom of trade and 
low tariff taxes? This is a question worth pondering. Could it possibly 
be that fast track, NAFTA and the WTO have nothing to do with real free 
trade? Could it be that corporate America is ensconced in a modern-day 
corporatism that see fast track as a vehicle toward a managed trade 
system that serves the powerful at the expense of the weak? Certainly 
the ready willingness to grant exemptions to various industries and 
commodities during the negotiations suggests less than a principled 
effort to promote free and unhampered trade.

  Third, this current debate has entirely ignored the nature of modern-
day protectism. Already, in recent years, sanctions have been applied 
through international governmental bodies 61 times. These originate 
from complaints from industries that claim they are being subject to 
unfare competition from those who are selling their products at a lower 
price. Currently, there are still pending 27 proposals for more 
sanctions.
  Fourth, since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods Agreement, trade has 
been manipulated by the various countries through competitive currency 
devaluations. This is ongoing and is currently driving the bailout in 
Southeast Asia, just as was done 2 years ago in Mexico. All this 
currency and IMF activity is to promote trade in one direction or 
another and to bail out the powerful special interests who invested in 
countries when the times were good but want help once the markets 
turned against them.
  There is no reason why free trade agreements can't be drawn up much 
more simply and in a bilateral fashion with Congress fully 
participating. Low tariffs and free trade with any country can be 
accomplished with an agreement less than one page in length. This whole 
debate ignores the fact that countries that impose high tariffs on 
their people suffer much more so than the countries hoping to export 
products to them.
  This whole debate on fast track was designed to obscure the 
definition and process of real freedom in trade. Fortunately further 
casual endorsement of this process, first started by Richard Nixon, was 
met with a setback, temporary as it may be, in the inexorable march 
toward the NWO and the one world government.

                          ____________________