[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 1, 2000)]
[House]
[Page H612]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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 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.

                          ____________________