2002 Ron Paul 79:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose
this rule because I would like to consider this
important issue, but I am very concerned with
the process of bringing this legislation before
this body.
2002 Ron Paul 79:2
Mr. Speaker, since we began looking at proposals
here in the House of Representatives,
more questions have arisen than have been
answered. We have put this legislation on a
“fast track” to passage, primarily for reasons
of public relations, and hence have shortcircuited
the deliberative process. It has been
argued that the reason for haste is the seriousness
of the issue, but frankly I have always
held that the more serious the issue is,
the more deliberative we here ought to be.
2002 Ron Paul 79:3
Instead of a carefully crafted product of
meaningful deliberations, I fear we are once
again about to pass a hastily drafted bill in
order to appear that we are “doing
something.”
Over the past several months, Congress
has passed a number of hastily crafted
measures that do little, if anything, to enhance
the security of the American people. Instead,
these measures grow the size of the Federal
Government, erode constitutional liberties, and
endanger our economy by increasing the federal
deficit and raiding the social security trust
fund. The American people would be better
served if we gave the question of how to enhance
security from international terrorism the
serious consideration it deserves rather than
blindly expanding the Federal Government.
Congress should also consider whether our
hyper-interventionist foreign policy really benefits
the American people.
2002 Ron Paul 79:4
Serious and substantive questions about
this reorganization have been raised. Many of
these questions have yet to be resolved. Just
because a bill has been reported from the Select
Committee does not mean that a consensus
exists. Indeed, even a couple of days
before consideration, this bill it was impossible
to get access to the legislation in the form introduced
in the committee, let alone as
amended by the committee.
2002 Ron Paul 79:5
In the course of just one week, the President’s
original 52-page proposal swelled to
232 pages, with most members, including myself,
unable to review the greatly expanded
bill. While I know that some of those additions
are positive, such as Mr. ARMEY’s amendments
to protect the privacy of American citizens,
it is impossible to fully explore the implications
of this, the largest departmental reorganization
in the history of our Federal Government,
without sufficient time to review the
bill. This is especially the case in light of the
fact that a number of the recommendations of
the standing committees were not incorporated
in the legislation, thus limiting our ability
to understand how our constituents will be
affected by this legislation.
2002 Ron Paul 79:6
I have attempted to be a constructive part of
this very important process. From my seat on
the House International Relations Committee I
introduced amendments that would do something
concrete to better secure our homeland.
Unfortunately, my amendments were not
adopted in the form I offered them. Why? Was
it because they did not deal substantively with
the issues at hand? Was it because they addressed
concerns other than those this new
department should address? No, amazingly I
was told that my amendments were too “substantive.”
My amendments would have made
it impossible for more people similar to those
who hijacked those aircraft to get into our
country. They would have denied certain visas
and identified Saudi Arabia as a key problem
in our attempt to deal with terrorism. Those
ideas were deemed too controversial, so they
are not included in this bill.
2002 Ron Paul 79:7
I also introduced four amendments to the
bill itself, including those that would prohibit a
national identification card, that would prohibit
the secretary of this new department from
moving money to other agencies and departments
without congressional oversight, that
would deny student visas to nationals of Saudi
Arabia, and that would deny student and diversity
visas to nationals from terrorist-sponsoring
countries. All of these amendments,
which would have addressed some of the real
issues of our security, were rejected. They
were not even allowed onto the floor for a debate.
This is yet more evidence of the failure
of this process.
