|
Ron Paul's Freedom Report
A publication of the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
Volume 4, No. 2 APRIL 2000
Editor's Note: This is a continuation of the special series of reports taken from Rep. Ron Paul's statements
in defense of liberty, delivered on the floor of the House of Representatives or in committee hearings.
"The World Trade Organization is the furthest thing from free trade…
it is an egregious attack upon our national sovereignty."
[WEDNESDAY., MARCH 1, 2000 ]
Dr. Paul introduces legislation (H.J.Res. 90) calling for the United States to
Withdraw from the World Trade Organization
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 the 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 U.S. 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 [was placed] 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.
[Editor's note: a tariff is an additional fee, usually a percentage of the cost of the item, levied at the time that item is imported into a country. That additional fee, whether it is 5, 10, 30-percent or more of the base cost, is born by the purchaser in the country into which the item is imported - it makes an item more expensive to purchase - it is a tax.]
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.
[H.J.Res 90 was sent to the Committee on Ways and Means.]
[TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2000]
On presenting a Congressional Gold Medal to John Cardinal O'Connor
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3557. At the same time, I rise in total support of, and with complete respect for, the work of Cardinal O'Connor. Cardinal O'Connor is a true hero as he labors tirelessly on behalf of the most needy and vulnerable in our society; promotes racial and religious harmony; advocates the best education for all children regardless of race, religion, or financial status; ministers to the poor, sick, and disabled; all the while standing up for that which he believes, even in the face of hostility.
I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Cardinal O'Connor because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor in the spirit of Cardinal O'Connor who dedicates his life to voluntary and charitable work, particularly humanitarian.
Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution, several of my colleagues felt compelled to personally challenge me as to whether, on this issue, I would maintain my resolve and commitment to the Constitution - a Constitution, which only last year, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold.
In each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath. In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for the work of Cardinal O'Connor, I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to the well-deserving Cardinal O'Connor.
To me, this occasion seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one's genuine convictions by spending one's own money rather than that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to the work of Cardinal O'Connor as they have consistently done in the past. For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayers' money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate the courage of their so-called convictions and generosity.
It is, of course, very easy to be generous with other people's money.
[THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2000]
Dr. Paul introduces the Pharmaceutical Freedom Act of 2000
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Pharmaceutical Freedom Act of 2000, (H.R. 3636). This legislation ensures that millions of Americans, including seniors, have access to affordable pharmaceutical products.
My bill makes pharmaceuticals more affordable to seniors by reducing their taxes. It removes needless government barriers to importing pharmaceuticals, and it also protects Internet pharmacies that are making affordable prescription drugs available to millions of Americans from being strangled by federal regulation.
The first provision of my legislation provides seniors a tax credit equal to 80 percent of their prescription-drug costs. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, our nation's seniors are struggling to afford the prescription drugs they need in order to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle. Yet the Federal Government continues to impose taxes on Social Security benefits and limit senior citizens' ability to earn additional income by reducing Social Security benefits if a senior exceeds the "earnings limitation." Meanwhile, Congress continually raids the Social Security trust fund to finance unconstitutional programs! It is long past time for Congress to choose between helping seniors afford medicine or using the Social Security trust fund as a slush fund for big government and pork-barrel spending.
Mr. Speaker, I do wish to clarify that this tax credit is intended to supplement the efforts to reform and strengthen the Medicare system to ensure seniors have the ability to use Medicare funds to purchase prescription drugs. I am a strong supporter of strengthening the Medicare system to allow for more choice and consumer control, including structural reforms that will allow seniors to use Medicare funds to cover the costs of prescription drugs.
In addition to making prescription medications more affordable for seniors, my bill lowers the price for prescription medicines by reducing barriers to the importation of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. Under my bill, anyone wishing to import a drug simply submits an application to the FDA, which then must approve the drug unless the FDA finds the drug is either not approved for use in the U.S. or is adulterated or misbranded. This process will make safe and affordable imported medicines available to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, letting the free market work is the best means of lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
The Pharmaceutical Freedom Act also protects consumers' access to affordable prescription drugs by forbidding the Federal Government from regulating any Internet sales of FDA-approved pharmaceuticals by state-licensed pharmacists. As I am sure my colleagues are aware, the Internet makes pharmaceuticals and other products more affordable and accessible for millions of Americans. However, the Federal Government has threatened to destroy this option by imposing unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations on web sites which sell pharmaceuticals. Any federal regulations would inevitably drive up prices of pharmaceuticals, thus depriving many consumers of access to affordable prescription medications.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to make pharmaceuticals more affordable and accessible by lowering taxes on senior citizens, removing barriers to the importation of pharmaceuticals, and protecting legitimate Internet pharmacies from needless regulation by cosponsoring the Pharmaceutical Freedom Act of 2000.
[H.R. 3636 was referred to the Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Health and Environment, and to the Ways and Means Committee.]
[WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2000]
Dr. Paul introduces the
Partial Birth Abortion and Judicial Limitation Act
Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Partial Birth Abortion and Judicial Limitation Act (H.R. 3691). This bill would, in accordance with Article 3, Section 2 of our United States Constitution, prohibit federal courts (exclusive of the U.S. Supreme Court) from hearing cases relative to partial birth abortion.
One of the most egregious [aspects] of the Roe v. Wade decision is that the ruling in that case served to substitute the opinions of unelected judges for those of state representatives when it comes to making abortion law. By doing that, judges have not merely taken on the role of legislators, they have also thrust the federal apparatus into an area that the Founding
Fathers specifically and exclusively entrusted to state entities.
Unfortunately, this aspect of Roe v. Wade has not received the attention that less critical portions of the decision have received.
The legislation I am introducing today is aimed at moving us toward correcting the federal judicial usurpation of constitutionally identified state authority. This legislation is needed now more than ever as certain "lower federal courts" have taken it upon themselves to continue the error-ridden ways of Roe v. Wade by overturning legitimate state restrictions on partial birth abortion.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to review this new legislation and to join me in this battle by cosponsoring this pro-life legislation.
[H.R. 3691 was sent to the Judiciary Committee.]
[FRIDAY, JANUARY 28, 2000]
Statement on OSHA Home Office Regulations
Submitted before the Education and Workforce Committee
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns regarding the possibility that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will attempt to exercise regulatory authority over home-based worksites and hold employers responsible for accidents occurring in such worksites.
Although OSHA has announced that it will only hold employers liable for conditions at home-based worksites if the employee is performing "hazardous manufacturing work," this proposal still raises serious concerns. This is because any expansion of OSHA's regulatory authority in the home represents a major expansion of federal authority far beyond anything intended by Congress when it created OSHA in the 1970s. Furthermore, OSHA regulation of any type of work in the private residence opens the door to the eventual regulation of all home worksites.
In order to ensure home-based workers are protected from overzealous federal bureaucrats, Congressman J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) and myself have introduced legislation, the Home Office Protection Enhancement (HOPE) Act (H.R. 3539), amending the Occupational Safety and Health Act to clarify that OSHA has no authority over worksites located in an employee's residence.
Modern technology, [through applications] such as E-mail and the Internet, allows employees to be productive members of the workforce without leaving their homes. The option of telecommuting is particularly valuable for women with young children or those caring for elderly parents. Using technology to work at home gives these Americans the chance to earn a living and have a fulfilling career while remaining at home with their children or elderly parents. Telecommuting also makes it easier for citizens with disabilities to become productive members of the job market.
Any federal requirements holding employers liable for the conditions of a home office may well cause some employers to forbid their employees to telecommute, thus shutting millions of mothers, persons caring for elderly parents, and disabled citizens out of the workforce.
Federal policies discouraging telecommuting will harm the environment by forcing American workers out of their home and onto America's already overcrowded roads. It is ironic that an administration which has claimed that "protecting the environment" is one of its top priorities, would even consider policies that could undermine a market-created means of protecting the environment. Employers who continue to allow their employees to telecommute will be forced by any OSHA regulations on home offices to inspect their employees' homes to ensure they are in compliance with any and all applicable OSHA regulations. This is a massive invasion of employees' privacy.
What employee would want their boss snooping around their living room, den, or bedroom to make sure their "home-based worksite" was OSHA compliant?
Mr. Chairman, the fact that OSHA would even consider exercising regulatory authority over any part of a private home shows just how little respect OSHA has for private property. Private property, of course, was considered one of the bulwarks of liberty by our nation's Founding Fathers, and has been seriously eroded in this country.
While it is heartening that so many members of Congress have expressed their displeasure with OSHA over this issue, I am concerned that most of the debate has focused on the negative consequences of this regulation instead of on the question of whether OSHA has the constitutional authority to regulate any part of a private residence (or private business for that matter).
The economic and social consequences of allowing federal bureaucrats to regulate home offices certainly should be debated. However, I would remind my colleagues that conceding the principle that the only way to protect worker safety is by means of a large bureaucracy with the power to impose a "one-size-fits-all" model on every workplace in America ensures that defenders of the free market will always be on the defensive, trying to reign in the bureaucracy from going "too far" rather than advancing a positive, pro-freedom agenda.
Furthermore, many companies are experiencing great success at promoting worker safety by forming partnerships with their employees to determine how best to create a safe workplace. This approach to worker safety is both more effective and constitutionally sound than giving OSHA bureaucrats the power to, for example, force landscapers to use $200 gas cans instead of $5 cans, or fining a construction company $7,000 dollars because their employees jumped in a trench to rescue a trapped man without first putting on their OSHA-approved hard hats, or fine a company because it failed to warn employees not to eat copier toner!
OSHA's Insignificant Role in Reducing Workplace Injury
Some may argue that occasional regulatory excess is a small price to pay for a safe workplace. However, there is no evidence that OSHA's invasiveness promotes workplace safety. While it is true that workplace accidents have declined since OSHA's creation, OSHA itself has had little effect on the decline. Workplace deaths and accidents were declining before OSHA's creation, thanks to improvements in safety technology and changes in the occupational distribution of labor.
Workplace fatalities declined from 30 deaths per 100,000 in 1945 to 18 deaths per 100,000 in 1969, three years before OSHA's creation. In contrast to the dramatic drop in workplace fatalities in the 24 years before OSHA's creation, workplace fatalities only declined from 18 per 100,000 to eight in the 21 years after OSHA's creation.
OSHA's role in this decline was negligible. According to Richard Butler of the University of Minnesota, who studied National Safety Council data on workplace facility rates, OSHA's contribution to workplace fatality rates is "statistically insignificant." This is not an isolated example; the vast majority of workplace studies show an insignificant role for OSHA in reducing workplace injuries.
This is why I have supported several legislative efforts to encourage a more cooperative approach to workplace safety. I hope Congress will continue to work to replace the old "command-and control" model with one that respects the U.S. Constitution and does not treat Americans like children in need of the protection of "big brother" government.
In conclusion, I wish to once again thank Mr. Hoesktra for holding this hearing on this important issue and urge my colleagues to join with Mr. Hayworth and myself to protect those who work at home from further over-regulation by cosponsoring the Home Office Protection Enhancement Act (HOPE) Act.
[H.R. 3539 was sent to the Education and Worforce Committee Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.]
|
