[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 13]
[House]
[Page 17652]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         CAFTA--PROPERTY RIGHTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Price of Georgia). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss perhaps the most 
fundamental of the reasons for my opposition to the Central American 
Free Trade Agreement or CAFTA--the serious conflicts it raises with 
private property rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United 
States.
  I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that CAFTA contains 1,000 
pages of international law establishing, among other things, property 
rights for foreign investors that may impose restrictions on U.S. land-
use policy. Chapter 10 of CAFTA outlines a system under which foreign 
investors operating in the United States are granted greater property 
rights than U.S. law provides for our own citizens!
  Mr. Speaker, that's not encouraging free trade. That's giving away 
our natural resources and our national sovereignty. CAFTA would empower 
foreign investors to go to UN and World Bank tribunals to challenge 
state and federal policies here in the United States regarding property 
rights that violate their assumed ``investor rights.'' Those foreign 
investors then could demand compensation in the form of U.S. taxpayer 
dollars for the losses caused by complying with the same domestic 
policies and regulations that apply to all U.S. citizens and 
businesses.
  The standards for property rights protection that are used by the UN 
and World Bank to award U.S. taxpayer dollars to foreign investors 
would NOT be those of the U.S. Constitution, but rather international 
property rights standards set forth in CAFTA, as interpreted by an 
international tribunal. And I'm not the only one upset about this. No 
less than the Conference of State Supreme Court Chief Justices is among 
those concluding that CAFTA provides greater property rights to foreign 
investors than U.S. law provides you and me as U.S. citizens!
  Furthermore, current rules under Trade Promotion Authority granted by 
Congress require that trade pacts grant to foreign investors ``no 
greater substantive rights with respect to investment protections than 
U.S. investors in the United States.'' Yet even a cursory review 
reveals that CAFTA fails the test on both counts. Although some words 
included in NAFTA's investor protection system were changed in CAFTA, 
the changes were simply procedural and not substantive.
  Instead of basing foreign investors' property rights on U.S. law, as 
Congress requires, CAFTA provides foreign investors in the United 
States with a ``minimum standard of treatment'' set forth by 
``customary international law'' and established in ``principle legal 
systems of the world.'' The effect is to throw U.S. sovereignty and 
property rights out the window in the name of ``free trade.'' CAFTA 
exceeds U.S. law by empowering foreign investors to go to international 
tribunals in an effort to be compensated in U.S. taxpayer dollars for 
regulatory takings.
  Furthermore, new language in CAFTA almost unbelievably extends the 
outrageous benefits of this foreign investor-state dispute resolution 
system to corporations that have a ``written agreement'' with the 
federal government regarding ``natural resources or other assets that a 
national authority controls.'' For example, foreign investors could 
circumvent the U.S. court system entirely by bringing arbitrary 
challenges over oil and gas, mining, and water contracts to an 
international tribunal. If a foreign investor is granted a land 
concession for logging and, as a condition of the contract, is told 
that the trees must be replanted, the foreign investor can challenge 
the requirement to replant as an infringement on their ``foreign 
investor rights'' and ``minimum standard of treatment'' through UN and 
World Bank tribunals. The U.S. logging company down the street can only 
go through U.S. courts and has no such special rights.
  The very notion that international tribunals should get a say in how 
we manage U.S. property rights and grant concessions on U.S. land is 
simply unacceptable. Opening new markets between Central America and 
the United States is one thing. Asking me to cede decisions over U.S. 
natural resources and property rights to international tribunals while 
giving foreigners greater rights to our land than our own citizens have 
is something else entirely. I won't accept it, and neither should you.

                          ____________________