[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 161 (Monday, December 15, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            FAST TRACK AUTHORITY: A FRAUDULENT NAME AND GAME

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 13, 1997

  Mr. LaFALCE.  Mr. Speaker, the issue most are debating today is 
whether Congress should give the President fast-track authority to 
negotiate trade agreements with foreign governments. At least, that is 
how the issue is usually described and debated.
  But there is a real problem in both the description and the debate. 
And the closer you look at it, the clearer it becomes that the 
description is misleading and the debate often fraudulent.
  First, there is nothing inherently faster about trade agreements 
reached under this process. In fact, we often spend more time and 
energy discussing fast track than we do the actual trade agreements. 
Second, the President does not obtain some new authority from Congress 
to negotiate trade deals; he has plenary authority under the 
Constitution to negotiate any agreement he might want with other 
nations. Indeed, the only question extant is whether Congress will try 
to relinquish or forfeit its constitutional authority to propose 
amendments to any proposal that the President might reach with other 
nations. Hence, the issue is not whether Congress will give the 
President any authority; it is whether Congress will give up its own 
constitutional authority.
  So what is fraudulent about this debate? First, so-called fast-track 
authority is constitutionally unenforceable. Congress cannot 
legislatively give up its constitutional power to make laws or its 
powers to determine how to go about making laws. Surely, Congress can 
pass a law purporting to bind itself and future Congresses on a future 
issue, as fast-track purports to do, but, it cannot be enforced. This 
Congress and future Congresses could always simply ignore such previous 
actions and offer amendments at any time to any bill.
  Second, even assuming such a limiting law could be enforced, neither 
this nor any previous fast-track proposal would actually eliminate 
congressional amendments to proposed trade bills. For every fast-track 
bill ever considered or proposed contains a glaring exception in the 
fine print making it say, in essence, that there will be no amendments 
unless the House or Senate passes a rule permitting amendments. In 
other words, the fast-track bills basically say that Congress will not 
consider amendments to a bill unless Congress decides to consider 
amendments to such a bill. So who's kidding whom? The answer is that 
just about everyone is fooling everyone. Such a loophole renders the 
law virtually meaningless, except, of course, to the extent it deceives 
foreign negotiators and the U.S. Congress.

  What is really happening here is a convergence of interests between 
the U.S. Presidents and foreign governments. Their understandable 
mutual desire is to minimize the role of that cumbersome, bothersome 
thing called Congress.
  In effect, they would have us say that for purposes of trade our 
constitutional system of representation does not work, cannot work, and 
must be circumvented. Instead, they would have us adopt a parliamentary 
system for trade laws, making the President a de facto Prime Minister 
and making the de facto parliament's vote really a simple ``yes'' or 
``no'' vote of confidence in the Prime Minister's leadership. This 
would not even be a vote on the merits of the trade deal, or even on 
support of a given President, but instead on support of the Office of 
the Presidency. That's not what the Constitution envisioned or 
envisions.
  Lastly, every bill implementing trade agreements submitted under 
fast-track authority in the past has been put through a rigorous 
preliminary amendment process in the Senate Finance and House Ways and 
Means Committees. These sessions have resulted in huge numbers of 
amendments; then, after the committee members have offered their 
amendments and voted on them, the amended end product is submitted by 
the President to the entire Congress. That bill is then brought forward 
for the ``yes'' or ``no'' vote envisioned under fast track.
  Thus, the debate on fast track has been riddled with fraud--fraud on 
foreign governments, on the Congress and on the body politic. I think 
we should deal with the issues openly and honestly. We can't give up 
our constitutional authority; we never have; and if we pass the 
President's fast-track proposal, we still wouldn't give up our 
authority. Having come to know this, I have chosen not to participate 
in the perpetuation of the fraud.
  Some will say that a vote against fast track is a vote against global 
trade; that opposing fast track is putting America last, not first; 
that a vote against fast track is being protectionist. To those, I say, 
``nonsense.'' These ad hominem attacks and false dichotomies sully the 
debate and are not worthy of a response. One can oppose fast track and 
still strongly favor global trade. I do. One can object to fast track 
and also oppose protectionism, seeking to put America first. I do. And 
one can support constitutional processes and still support enactment of 
trade agreements, as I supported the Canadian-American Free-Trade 
Agreement, the continuance of MFN for China, various iterations of 
GATT, the WTO, and so forth. I'd rather do that than support and 
perpetuate what is an essentially fraudulent process.

                          ____________________