by Congressman Ron Paul 

By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention.

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.

This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.

Governor Perry is a supporter of the superhighway project, and Congress has provided small amounts of money to study the proposal. Since this money was just one item in an enormous transportation appropriations bill, however, most members of Congress were not aware of it.

The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP.

The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco.

The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.

The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.

A new resolution, introduced by Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election.

Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight – and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty.

October 31, 2006

 

I have taken the time to look at this issue after "truckerdoc" posted a blog on the same subject.  As someone who has sworn an oath to the Consititution of the United States (and I'm one of those that believe the oath is still effective even after discharge), I find the whole concept disturbing.  But after you scratch the surface, you will find that the idea is founded on faulty premise.  The opening premise of the SPP and the Council's NAU concept is that of total reciprocating cooperation between the three nation states of Mexico, Canada, and the U.S.  Heck, the three cannot come up with a balanced approach on enforcing border security on the borders as they exist today.  Mexico, undermines it at every chance (particularly their foreign ministry), Canada is still trying to understand the correlation between borders and sovereignty, and us? We're just plain ignoring that correlation.  Another thing the whole concept ignores is plain human nature.  Each sovereign state has a dominant political apparatus that is not going to have its political power diluted by such a union.  Can you see the politicians in Mexico inviting "supergovernment" oversight? Or could you see our own politicians willingly giving up political power (of their own little political dunghill) to that of a higher authority, and through two wars Canada has staunchly defended its independent identity to keep from being absorbed.  Despite almost two hundred years of change, the fundamental differences that prevented a union between the three earlier still exist.  None of the provisions of the socalled SPP have been fully and reciprocally enacted or enforced.  And don't misunderstand, I am not dismissing the greed and ambition of those trying to attain greater market share and power, its just they have got to remove quite a few obstacles to get it.

What I do see realistically happening in the next 20 or so years is a North American Confederation, much like our original government that operated under the Articles of Confederation.  But realistically, I do not see a grand constitution convention to create a mega American superstate.  After 50 to 100 years ? perhaps that will be a different story.  So in my view this is a short term scheme to make money under a grand political idea that really won't change a thing.  Isolated individuals can push for such an idea all they want, but I don't see the traction.  The one thing that would create true 'bipartisan' movement between our parties is a political push to this direction.  And if the players that support this concept pushed too hard, unification of political enemies would be the least of their worries.

So yes I do see it as a problem.  Heck we haven't even completed the I69 "panAmerican" highway from Laredo to Detroit yet.  Congress is dragging out allocation of dollars to that one, now I am curious what motivation would make them pour out 20 times the money on a similar project??? 

I do not want to see the NAU.  AT this point in history, the three nation states are wholly incapatible, each with their own set of problems.  Mexico has endemic corruption problem.  Canada has its own long list of problems (cheifly their "single payer" medical system (that don't work) and the occasional noise from Quebec about secession.  The United States, well our education system and taxation/wealth redistribution system is a monumental failure and if not corrected in the next ten to twenty years, we are in real trouble.  So no in the context of the agreement as written, SPP and the NAU is smoke and mirrors.

 The issue that concerns me more is one that Buchanan raised in his latest book.  Illegal immigration.  Instead of a nation focused on unifying values, it focused on divisive "multiculturism."  I think "balkanization" as Buchanan put it is a greater risk than the NAU concept.  A nation and society that has over stretched itself economically and culturally by overtaxation, over indebtedness, over commitment, and lack of unity is liable to break up.  Look at the old Soviet Union (its not the same, but it ain't apples and oranges either when you look at the core issues).  That is the real risk here.  A break up of the United States along regional and cultural lines might just facilitate a North American Union with a strong centralist government.

--------------------------------------------------------------
StormChaser