2001 Ron Paul 61:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission
to revise and extend his remarks.)
2001 Ron Paul 61:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
strong support of this amendment.
This is a token amount of money being
cut from the Export-Import Bank. The
President asked for a $120 million cut.
This is only $18 million. There was $120
million added over the present request.
This is not a project that is a favorite
of the President, and he has referred to
this as a form of corporate welfare.
2001 Ron Paul 61:3
This is just a small effort to rein in
the power of the special interests, the
powerful special interests. It has been
mentioned that jobs could be lost. In
the debate, there has been emphasis on
jobs, and the truth is that it may happen.
Jobs could be lost. But what Members
fail to realize is that the jobs lost
are special interest jobs. If my colleagues
take that same funding, and we
never talk about what would happen to
that $75 billion line of credit of the Export-
Import Bank if it were allowed to
remain in the economy. Other jobs
would be created, so my colleagues
cannot argue half of the case. We have
to look at the whole picture. Special
interest jobs would be lost. True market
jobs would be increased.
2001 Ron Paul 61:4
Mr. Chairman, last week we had a
vote on trade with China. I supported
that vote. I believe in free trade and
low tariffs. I believe in the right of people
to spend their money where they
please, and I believe it is best for countries
to be trading with each other. But
the very same people today arguing for
these corporate subsidies claim they
are for free trade. If my colleagues are
for free trade, they should not be for
corporate subsidies. They are not one
and the same. They are different.
2001 Ron Paul 61:5
Free trade means there are low tariffs,
but we do not subsidize any special
interests. To me it is rather amazing,
the paragraph that we are dealing with
is called Subsidy Authorization. There
is no pretension anymore. We just advertise,
this as a subsidies. When did
we get into the business of subsidies? A
long time ago, unfortunately. I do not
think that the Congress should be in
the business of subsidies.
2001 Ron Paul 61:6
Mr. Chairman, this amendment has
something to do with campaign finance
reform. I am in favor of some reforms,
that is, less control. People have the
right to spend their own money the
way they want; and when we have the
problem of big corporations coming
here and lobbying us, that is a secondary
problem.
2001 Ron Paul 61:7
If my colleagues look at the corporations
that get the biggest subsidies
from the Export-Import Bank, they
really lobby us.
2001 Ron Paul 61:8
Mr. Chairman, what I say is let us
have some real campaign finance reform
and let us get rid of the subsidies
and the motivation for these huge corporations
to come here and influence
our vote. That is what the problem is.
We do not need to get the money out of
politics, we need to get the money out
of Washington and out of the business
of subsidizing special interests. That is
where our problem is.
2001 Ron Paul 61:9
Last week we voted to trade with
China, and I said I supported that. But
anybody who voted against that bill
because they do not like what is happening
in China should vote for this
amendment and also my amendment
that is likely to come up.
2001 Ron Paul 61:10
China gets $6.2 billion, the largest
subsidy to any country in the world
from the Export-Import Banks. China
gets it. So why do we first want to
trade with China, then subsidize them
as well, and then complain? I would
suggest that those who claim they believe
in free trade, they need to support
this amendment because we are getting
into the interference and manipulation
of trade, the subsidy to big corporations.
2001 Ron Paul 61:11
Those who do not like China should
vote for this because there is a suggestion
that the Export-Import Bank
serves the interest of China. So to me
it should be an easy vote. The only
problem with this amendment is that
it is so small. It does not really address
the big subject on whether or not the
Congress should be in this business. Obviously
they should not be. Where do
you find the authorization to give subsidy
appropriations in the Constitution?
It is not there.
2001 Ron Paul 61:12
This is a charade. This is fiction
when it comes to looking at constitutional
law.
2001 Ron Paul 61:13
I would strongly urge a yes vote on
this amendment and do not support
this effort to benefit the big companies
and hurt the little guys. The little
guys are the ones who lose this line of
credit and push their interest rates up.
2001 Ron Paul 61:14
Who gets the risk under this situation?
The taxpayer. There is a lot of insurance
in the Export-Import Bank.
The risk goes to the taxpayer, but the
profits go to the corporations. What is
fair about that? The big corporation
cannot lose. So why would the banks
not loan to the big special interest corporations?
