Congress kept in the dark about “SPP”

President Bush has kept congress in the dark about the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement (“SPP”) and as a result the United States is inching closer and closer to a North American Union. Although some in congress have a glimmer of the plan, most do not.

What is most troubling is that because SPP is neither a treaty nor formal agreement congressional oversight is virtually non existent and Congress has had no role in what many believe is a plan for a North American Union.

In a paper entitled “Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosperity Partnership”, the authors (Professor Anderson and Mr. Sands) state the stealth intentions of SPP: “The SPP process is the vehicle for the discussion of future arrangements for economic integration to create a single market for goods and services in North America (and)… this design places negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States …”

Clearly, by setting up SPP as neither a treaty nor an agreement it is designed to avoid Congress since both would require congressional approval or implementing legislation. Instead, by being entirely within existing administrative authority of the executive branch, rules and standards could be set and law enforcement and national security prerogatives pursued, all within the broad parameters of constitutional executive authority without congressional authorization.

John Whitehead (founder and president of the Rutherford Institute) said, “What George Bush is currently doing is preparing a toolbox of power for the next president, whoever that might be. And the Constitution be damned.” Imagine what a globalist president could do with this power.

Fortunately some in congress have learned about SPP and its consequences. Twenty-two members of the U.S. House of Representatives – 21 Republicans and a Democrat – urged President Bush in a letter to back off his North American integration efforts. They made it clear that continuing any such agenda at this point would be disregarding growing apprehension in Congress about the plans. The letter to Bush noted that there are “serious concerns … by those of us in Congress and by our constituents about this initiative (SPP) – concerns that will only be intensified if pursuit of the SPP continues out of public view and without congressional oversight or approval."

The last paragraph of the letter called upon the president "not to pledge or agree to any further movement in connection with the SPP” at North American summits and the letter concluded, "In the interest of transparency and accountability, we urge you to bring to the Congress whatever provisions have already been agreed upon and those now being pursued or contemplated as part of this initiative, for the purpose of obtaining authorization through the normal legislative process."

Signatories to the letter include Duncan Hunter, R-CA, who offered an amendment to H.R.3074, the Transportation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008, prohibiting the use of federal funds to participate in SPP-related working group meetings in the future.

One element of SPP is a ‘NAFTA Superhighway’ that will extend from Mexico to Canada, going through Texas northward, and with branches going east to Florida and west to California. It is reported that a Spanish construction company will build the highway and operate it as a toll road.

Congressman Virgil Good, R-VA, has introduced a resolution, H. Con. Res. 40, which urges the United States not to engage in the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway, disapproves of SPP plans to create a North American Union, and asks the president to oppose any proposals that would threaten US sovereignty (from statement by Ron Paul, M.D., R-Tex).

We must contact our representatives and ask them to become aware of SPP and to support those that question SPP and ask the president to keep congress informed.

“When patriot Patrick Henry said ‘I regret I have but one life to give for my country’ - he wasn’t referring to Mexico or Canada.” (Pat Boone).