[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11325-11326]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            U.S. MEMBERSHIP IN THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about a bill that is 
coming to the floor either tomorrow or the next day. It is H.J. Res. 
90. This resolution, if it were to pass, would get us out of the World 
Trade Organization.
  There are many of us here in the House and many Americans who believe 
very sincerely that it is not in our best interests to belong to the 
World Trade Organization, who believe very sincerely that international 
managed trade, as carried on through the World Trade Organization, does 
not conform with our Constitution and does not serve our interests.
  It said by those who disagree with this so often in the media that 
those of us who disagree with the World Trade Organization that we are 
paranoid, we worry too much, and that there is no loss of sovereignty 
in this procedure. But quite frankly, there is strong evidence to 
present to show that not only do we lose sovereignty as we deliver this 
power to the World Trade Organization, that it indeed is not a legal 
agreement. It does not conform with our Constitution; and, therefore, 
we as Members of Congress should exert this privilege that we have 
every 5 years to think about the World Trade Organization, whether it 
is in our best interests and whether it is technically a good 
agreement.
  The World Trade Organization came into existence, and we joined it, 
in a lame duck session in 1994. It was hurried up in 1994 because of 
the concern that the new Members of Congress, who would have much more 
reflected the sentiments of the people, would oppose our membership in 
the WTO. So it went through in 1994; but in that bill, there was an 
agreement that a privileged resolution could come up to offer us this 
opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just point out the importance of whether or not 
this

[[Page 11326]]

actually attacks our sovereignty. The CRS has done a study on the WTO, 
and they make a statement in this regard. This comes from a report from 
the Congressional Research Service on 8-25-99. It is very explicit. It 
says, as a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in 
accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It is legally 
obligated to ensure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules. That 
is about as clear as one can get.
  Now, more recently, on June 5, the WTO director, General Michael 
Moore, made this statement and makes it very clear: the dispute 
settlement mechanism is unique in the international architecture. WTO 
member governments bind themselves to the outcome from panels and, if 
necessary, the appellate body. That is why the WTO has attracted so 
much attention from all sorts of groups who wish to use this mechanism 
to advance their interests.
  Interestingly enough, in the past, if we dealt with trade matters, 
they came to the U.S. Congress to change the law; they came to elected 
representatives to deal with this, and that is the way it should be 
under the Constitution. Today, though, the effort has to be directed 
through our world trade representative, our international trade 
representative, who then goes to bat for our business people at the 
WTO. So is it any surprise that, for instance, the company of Chiquita 
Banana, who has these trade wars going on in the trade fights, wants 
somebody in the administration to fight their battle, and just by 
coincidence, they have donated $1.5 million in their effort to get 
influence?
  So I think that the American people deserve a little bit more than 
this.
  The membership in the WTO actually is illegal, illegal any way we 
look at it. If we are delivering to the WTO the authority to regulate 
trade, we are violating the Constitution, because it is very clear that 
only Congress can do this. We cannot give that authority away. We 
cannot give it to the President, and we cannot give it to an 
international body that is going to manage trade in the WTO. This is 
not legal, it is not constitutional, and it is not in our best 
interests. It stirs up the interest to do things politically, and 
unelected bureaucrats make the decision, not elected officials. It was 
never intended to be that way, and yet we did this 5 years ago. We have 
become accustomed to it, and I think it is very important, it is not 
paranoia that makes some of us bring this up on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, we will be discussing this either tomorrow or the next 
day. We will make a decision, and it is not up to the World Trade 
Organization to decide what labor laws we have or what kind of 
environmental laws we have, or what tax laws.

                          ____________________